In Australia, and more generally in the Western world, we are accustomed to take seriously only opinions that come from our own languages and cultures. We will notice what the Americans say, the British, and the Dutch, for example. But if the opinions come from Russia, or China or India, we discount them. If they come from Brazil or Chile, we are unlikely even to know about them. A knowledgeable friend (peer-reviewed, yes, and an IPCC reviewer) pointed me towards an op ed piece in The Times of India, and I read it with some interest. The author is Sanjeev Sabhlok, who was educated in part at the University of Southern California, and after working for the Government of India, quit his job in despair and formed a right-wing anti-socialist party. He has become fascinated with the climate change issue, and what follows is a piece of cut-and-paste on my part. You can read it all here
‘As a liberal party, our default position is to reject any government intervention in the lives of people unless it is thoroughly justified. In particular, we reject the wishy-washy precautionary principle. Real harm must be proven before even the thought of government intervention is entertained.’
Well, there you go. Since I too reject the precautionary principle, I am with him there. On he goes: even the IPCC says there is no harm from climate change:
‘The IPCC’s 2014 AR5 report (see the chart at p.690 of Chapter 10 of the Working Group II’s contribution) makes note of 20 studies by economists about the welfare impacts of climate change. Three of these conclude that doing nothing may improve things. Most of the remaining 17 studies suggest a very modest loss of future income, of less than three per cent. The IPCC summarises: estimates of global annual economic losses for an additional temperature increase of 2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income. These are its precise words. Check them out for yourself.’
He moves on to an issue that has caught my attention in the past, though I have not explored it, or written about it.
‘There is no basis to suggest that today’s temperature or sea level is optimal for life on earth. The climate has constantly changed, sometimes massively. A few degrees up and down, a few tens of metres of sea level up and down, is par for the course for life on Earth.
Just a thousand years ago, the global temperature was very warm. The IPCC’s first report had a chart that showed temperatures far in excess of current temperatures during the Medieval Warming (MW) period. But the IPCC soon realised that people wouldn’t cough up their money unless the MW was erased. Since then, these “scientists” have been making strenuous efforts to get rid of it.
A recent study published in Nature rejects MW. But I’d be reluctant to embrace it, at least not so fast. It needs to be thoroughly scrutinised by scientists whose hundreds of previous studies confirmed the MW. The weight of evidence is still with the MW. And then the temperatures cooled, leading to a Little Ice Age from which we emerged around two hundred years ago. All this variation occurred without man-made CO2 emissions.’
My position is that so far the evidence tells us that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is associated with greater food production and seems to have caused a perceptible greening in the close-to-arid parts of the planet. I do agree with him that the notion that today’s sea levels and temperatures are somehow ‘optimal’ does need a good deal of consideration. I see no reason to accept it.
My interest now keen, I thought I would find out more about India’s electricity supply, and where it came from. How like or unlike Australia’s was it? According to Wikipedia, there is one national grid, and just about everybody (99.7 per cent) is connected to it. As with us, coal is the backbone of Indian electricity production, amounting to not quite 76 per cent. India runs fourth in the world in coal reserves. Then come large hydro-electricity sources (nearly 10 per cent), small hydro (0.4 per cent), wind (4 per cent), gas (nearly 4 per cent), nuclear (2.9 per cent), solar (2 per cent), and biomass (1.2 per cent).
It is rather similar to Australia, where the standard division of fuel sources for electricity (Ausgrid) runs at coal 74 per cent, natural gas 15 per cent, with the remaining 11 per cent produced by hydro (6 percent) and wind, rooftop solar and biomass contributing 5 per cent. The renewables proportion is increasing. We have no geothermal energy yet, and no nuclear energy. India has more hydro.
What about China? Coal supplies 65 per cent of electricity there, hydro 18 per cent and a bit more from pumped storage, nuclear 4 per cent, natural gas 3 per cent, renewables (wind, solar and biomass) around 7.7 per cent), other thermal nearly 2 per cent. That’s not strikingly dissimilar either. And China runs third in the world, just above India, in terms of its coal reserves.
Okay, what about Germany, the great leader in alternative electricity policy? Coal provides 45 per cent, renewables about 32 per cent, with nuclear power stations still providing power, despite the decision to close all plants. Germany has its own coal reserves, but buys in power from elsewhere in Europe when it needs to. Not a fair comparison.
All right, let’s go to Canada, which really is unusual. Hydro provides 59 per cent of electricity, then nuclear (15 per cent), fossil fuels 19 per cent, with coal only 9 per cent, and non-hydro renewables at 7 per cent. Alberta and Saskatchewan have oil and gas, and use them in their power production. But the other provinces do not. The Canadian situation is strikingly different not only to Australia, but to the other nations I have listed here. But then Canada has abundant water, and we don’t, at all. But we do have abundant coal.
A final journey takes us to Botswana, arguably the least corrupt state in sub-Saharan Africa. There is one supplier, the Botswana Power Corporation, which produces electricity from coal, at about half the desired consumption. It can get more power from South Africa, which has its own problems with under-capacity, so Botswana gets blackouts, too. It has its own coal reserves too, but getting them out is not easy for a poor country.
So there you are. On the face of it, you use what you can when you can afford to, in terms of the production of electricity. That is, until you have to deal with renewables. What things will be like in 2037, when I will have passed on or awaiting a royal congratulation, I have no idea. But coal will still be important in the mix, I think.
Second try. First got demolished by the “system.” It didn’t like my name so scrubbed the message. This will be brief as I’m tired.
Data on fraction of population who actually have access to grid power in each country?
Data on 24/7 reliability of supply versus intermittent supply?
These sort of comments annoy me…
“But the IPCC soon realised that people wouldn’t cough up their money unless the MW was erased. ”
Which “people” set this condition? Is there evidence?
Chris
Didn’t the Climategate emails include one that mentioned a (perceived need to eliminate the MWP from the record? Bad for the prospect of future grants?
It would have been individuals who saw the need, the IPCC is their collective existence.
The topic was IPCC.
You provide no evidence.
Chris
You might not have noticed, but there is staffing overlap between the IPCC and various climate study organisations around the world.
Also, I am continually amazed that someone who worked as a bureaucrat is unable to recognise the desire of bureaucracies to continue in existence.
Organisations like the IPCC, CRU, BOM, CSIRO, NASA-GISS and NOAA are comprised of fallible human beings, with all of the human weaknesses and ambitions. They avoid actions that might endanger their future careers, like presenting unacceptable options, and work towards options that help achieve those ambitions.
Irrelevent…. what people wouldn’t cough up their money unless their condition was met?
If you want to run some other agenda do it elsewhere.
Chris
As you wish, please continue to believe in the genius and impeccable unhuman nature of your chosen prophets.
Yes BJ, our blith not only must deny that Overpeck wanted to get rid of the MWP but also that his associates wanted to get rid of his email that said so.
Oh, those inconvenient denials that come back to bite the blitherers!
But guess what?
He even denies the denial.
Don
Your link to the original was broken. This should work?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/why-should-we-subsidise-tomorrows-rich-in-the-name-of-the-climate/
Here’s another way of looking at the actual co2 emissions since the Paris BS and fra-d show.
Cape Grim data shows DEC 2015 co2 levels at about 398ppm and today that has increased to over 407 ppm or an increase of 9 +ppm in just the last 4 years.
And all of that increase has come from the non OECD countries like China, India etc, while OECD have tried to cut back emissions.
At that rate co2 emissions will increase by another 22.5% by 2029 and a further 47.25% by 2040. Anyone starting to see a problem yet?
Sorry last sentence above should be ppm not %. See below—
“At that rate co2 emissions will increase by another 22.5 ppm by 2029 and a further 47.25 ppm by 2040. Anyone starting to see a problem yet”?
Neville.
“today that has increased to over 407 ppm or an increase of 9 +ppm in just the last 4 years.” I am having troubles finding evidence that this ‘increase’ is the result of ‘human’ increases in CO2 emissions.
I have been sceptical of evidence that the fraction of ‘human’ and ‘natural’ sources of this gas is anything other than a ‘wobbly’ figure. The ‘climategate’ emails suggest that a lot of figures provided by the ‘acceptable’ scientists are a bit ‘fluffy’, for example the 400ppm finger will result in (?) degree increase in global average temperatures. As more peer reviewed papers are published the temperature results from these increases continually reduce.
“The IPCC is saying that instead of being 6 times richer by the end of the century (the historic performance of economies for the past 200 years) our future generations will be only 5.6 times richer. I am sure tears are starting to roll down your cheeks by now.”
“In contrast to CO2, though, socialism causes real harm – but don’t expect Nature or grant-sucking scientists and economists to tell us that.”
“In brief, economists and scientists have comprehensively failed to prove that CO2 causes any harm. No case has been made whatsoever for any government intervention.”
It is this increase in wealth that will reduce global population.
Business as usual is the best environmental solution.
BAU is the best economic solution.
Don, much of what you just wrote and the bit from your Indian friend runs quite counter to the conclusions of the latest IPCC paper published yesterday.
Here is a quote “The report highlights that climate change is affecting all four pillars of food security: availability (yield and production), access (prices and ability to obtain food), utilization (nutrition and cooking), and stability (disruptions to availability).
“Food security will be increasingly affected by future climate change through yield declines – especially in the tropics – increased prices, reduced nutrient quality, and supply chain disruptions,” said Priyadarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
“We will see different effects in different countries, but there will be more drastic impacts on low-income countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean,” he said.”
I regard this report with more credibility than many of the unfounded claims of increasing yields etc overall.
Sounds like time for some precautionary action to me.
It is not clear why anyone should oppose a precautionary principle. Vaccination is based on precaution, and diversifying a portfolio is a precaution.
Precautionary action seems common sense if you accept the wisdom summed-up in “a stitch in time saves nine”.
Precautionary action seems highly desirable if the consequences of not taking action is an unstoppable catastrophic disaster that either threatens life in susceptible regions or, worse case, possibly all human life on Earth.
Chris
“Precautionary action seems highly desirable if the consequences of not taking action is an unstoppable catastrophic disaster that either threatens life in susceptible regions or, worse case, possibly all human life on Earth.”
I agree.
There is a finite possibility that an asteroid could strike the earth, ending all life on earth. I believe that a special force should be established, operating missiles with nuclear warheads, to attempt to divert any threat as it is identified. Obviously, a world wide space surveillance network will be needed to identify and track all objects in space and classify the risk from each.
This will cost trillions, but the survival of life on earth is worth the cost.
Or we could make some rational assessments of the relative risk.
The “Precautionary Principle” can be used to justify anything.
As a precaution, scientists are working on how to protect the Earth from asteroids.
So back in your box – you go.
But they haven’t got to the big dollars yet. Will you support them when they do? And will you give such a significant threat priority above combating CAGW?
And there are others I could offer. How far are you prepared to go?
If you are not prepared to fund every conceivable option, back in your box you go, and take the Precautionary Principle with you.
“As a precaution, scientists are working on how to protect the Earth from asteroids.”
And so they should.
Because that’s a real world threat that has happened many times before.
But CO2-induced catastrophe has never happened and likely never will.
But CO2-induced luxuriance has happened often.
So please stop blithering and bed-wetting.
Chris, you are confusing the ‘Precautionary principle’ with precaution. You are not alone, but I would suggest you think about this for a while.
It is true that we do vaccines as a precaution against disease. The reason is that we know, for a fact, that without vaccines we have much less control of the disease. Vaccines gives us an upper hand since we stop disease before it breaks out, without it we are left to fight the outbreaks. This we know, by hard evidence.
It is true that some will negotiate high risk by diversifying a portfolio. This is because we know, for a fact, that not doing so increases risk and increases the portion of chance in the game. We know this by hard experience.
The ‘Precautionary principle’, however, deals with fundamental uncertainty. See the difference? Don’t get misled by the name, it has nothing to do with precaution. So according to the precautionary principle, if you are faced with a decision where there is fundamental uncertainty on what will happen you should actually proceed with caution, rock the boat as little as possible and await a chance to gather more specific knowledge.
How is the ‘principle’ used when it comes to environmental issues? How is it used in respect to climate? Well, take a good hard look at what is being proposed. We have enormous schemes coming up where the proposition is to fundamentally change our societies, where we should introduce old school technology (harvesting wind and sun) which lays waste to enormous land areas, we should stop our use of agriculture as we know it and reverse tens of thousands of years of development. Based on what? Based on the assumption that it might possibly happen that our future will hold a different climate than we have today.
Have you ever considered the use of that precious ‘principle’ on the proposed climate mitigation actions themselves? You should.
And when you do, you will find as the rest of us that applying that precious ‘principle’ on situations with fundamental uncertainty you end up going round and round and round, for no other reason than you are afraid of moving on.
The ‘Precautionary principle’ is nothing more than a fancy name for stalling progress made by those who fear change.
Anders Valland
That was a good post written with some effort.
Of course the amount of precaution has to deal with the level of uncertainty of any adverse outcome.
But the different weighting you give to precaution now, compared to waiting ” to gather more specific knowledge”, has to recognise another factor – the impact of an adverse outcome sans precautionary prior provisions.
With portfolios, the adverse outcome is restricted to those who voluntarily took risks. With vaccinations precautionary steps are almost obligatory because we know with certainty that plague, smallpox, measles, flu, tetanus, syphilis etc spread wantonly, killing thousands of innocents.
So those who see a major catastrophe, as a almost certain outcome, of increased CO2 up to and over 500 ppm, have every cause to deploy the precautionary principle today. The period for gathering more information is over.
We have enough evidence that introducing precautions now is not “based on the assumption that it might possibly happen that our future will hold a different climate than we have today.” We no longer assume the basic facts of global warming.
We know that when CO2 soars over 500 ppm, we will have an atmosphere of some 50 million years ago just after the PETM. When 500ppm were in the atmosphere – there was no ice on Earth.
So the judgement that has to be made is to assess the impact of having 500ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and the historical evidence strongly suggests a much, much warmer global environment and one introduced at such speed that many species will be unable to adapt.
“It is not clear why anyone should oppose a precautionary principle.”
It’s crystal clear to rational people.
Nobody pays a premium equal to ten times the price of their house each year to insure it against a likely non-problem.
Well, nobody in their right mind, that is.
Chris, thank you for the reply.
As you know, Mark Twain once said that is not the things we do not know that get us into trouble. It is the things we know that just ain’t so.
You are confusing what people think with what they know. It s not surprising, because that is how our human brains are built. We believe in what we think. It is why someone invented Science, that thing which is easy to understand but very hard to do.
When you say “So those who see a major catastrophe, as a almost certain outcome, of increased CO2 up to and over 500 ppm, have every cause to deploy the precautionary principle today” you are doing that on the premise that the precautinary principle is actually a working principle and that it is correct. And thus you miss the quite important part of my post where I challenge the principle itself.
You claim that the use of the principle is correct because someone believes that something bad will happen. That is not a very rational stance on anything.
You can design a precautionary principle to ensure it is as correct as necessary. Believing that something bad could happen is sufficient to evoke some level of precaution – even if it never occurs in the future.
You never know for certain what will happen, you only know what could happen – good or bad.
Saying food yield and production will suffer with a little warming and increased CO2 is like saying that coral will die in warmer water.
You’ve notice all the crops and coral growing in those cold areas?
They just hate the warm stuff, hey?
What would we do without this “science”?
Can’t you get the simple message? It is not about a little warming, it is about the bigger warming that builds on the little we have now. And of course deniers thInk that 1.5 degrees is insignificant when research has shown that for many species that is a case of too much too soon. Then throw in the accelerators by reaching climate tipping points. Some are saying we are already closer to that point than calculated.
We were into at least 4c higher temps in the early Holocene.
How far into the higher latitudes do you think coral grew during the Holocene high stand?
How well do you think coral coped with enormous warming and SLR at the start of the Holocene?
How well do you think plant life coped with that enormous warming and CO2 rise?
Compare warming and SLR with cooling and falling seas and tell us which works better for crops and coral.
Try expanding your tiny mind a little, stu.
SD
“We were into at least 4c higher temps in the early Holocene.”
This is one of the reasons for the push to “eliminate” the MWP. If it can be shown that the woelrld survived at higher temperatures than currently expected (not predicted, and even expected is flattering the alarmists), then the heat, so to speak, goes out of the issue.
Absolutely, BJ.
And some of those papers claim that Holocene high stand temps must have been up to 7c warmer.
As I keep asking stu [and he never replies] please show us one thing that is happening now at current CO2 levels that didn’t happen with CO2 levels below 300ppm.
Define a climate ‘tipping point’, and the factors that will trigger one. Why has one never been reached in the past, when both temperatures and CO2 levels were higher than today?
Bryan Roberts
A tipping point is the point at which global ice declines year on year.
Another tipping point is when the median wet bulb temperature equals the human body temperature.
There have been several tipping points in the past causing collapses of civilisations and extinctions of species.
How many “tipping points” do you think we had back in the Holocene high stand, blith?
You know, before the LIA came along.
And how’s this for a modern “tipping point”:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/temp/uhi/rome-eu-heat-map-m.gif
One of the most amazing developments in recent decades is the complete rigging of the temperature records of every country on earth by their meteorological boffins to hoax everyone into accepting that the world is rapidly getting warmer when it is not. Even more amazing is that a small group, think Novas, Bolts etc have totally exposed this rort with minimal scientific resources and time. Bloody amazing, NOT. Get real you denialist freaks, you are in the same league as flat earthers and creationists, no hope for you unless you snap out of your self inflicted refusal to accept facts.
Oh, and SD, how much higher was the sea level in your so called 4 degree warmer world of the early holocene and how rapidly did things change back then? Your obsession with that era, on flimsy evidence, and urine does cause sane folks to question your peccadilloes and sanity.
Stu
“Some are saying”
Ah, that well known friend of journalists and commentators who wish to make a point, “Some say”. An unreliable source with no proven access to genuine data.
“Some” have been predicting tipping points for many years. Will they be correct this time?
Boambee John
There are plenty of reliable sources with access to reliable data.
You are just incompetant… a school-boy could locate plenty [7,630,000 results ]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=climate+tipping+points
Chris
Again, as so often, you (deliberately?) miss my point.
Stu could have cited some of these references, but instead chose the lazy “Some say” meme.
PS, I hope that you studied all 7,630,000 results before responding in such a trite fashion.
You queried “some”.
You suffer the consequences.
Chris
If you are ignorant of the journalistic device of using “Some say” when they are either too lazy to check the data, or simply wish to push their own barrow, then you have lived a very sheltered life.
You need to get out into the real world more.
What consequences? You making yet another silly comment? Oh, the pain!
But Chris, the point is that if you do not know what will happen you actually have to assess the possible impacts of any action you suggest, including the possibility of inaction. That is what Bjørn Lomborg does. That means you cannot say e.g. that I believe the world will end if we continue emitting CO2 as we do today, and thus I want everybody to radically change their lifestyles and living standards. You have to address the unknowns in what might possibly happen if we actually radically change our lifestyles and living standards. You have to address what might possibly be the outcome of totally redistributing the way the countries on this planet generate their income and thus their living standards. Bjørn Lomborgs assessment is that we will be worse off radically changing things now, than if we let the warming happen while doing what we do best: spend our resources carefully in constantly improving peoples lives AND develop new solutions.
The precautionary principle works in every direction, not only in the one you want. And it does so because it deals with fundamental uncertainty. When we are unable to tell how our climate system will evolve in the future, and we are unable to do that, we are dealing with fundamental uncertainty. As it stands today there is a certain non-negligible probability that nothing bad outside common human experience will happen as a result of the warming to come, and you actually have to take that into account as well. Because if nothing bad happens, and you spent most of your means changing everything – well, you set us back in development and that has consequences. You cannot ignore that.
And that is why this ‘principle’ is not a useful thing.
Anders Valland
It is best if we prioritise action on things we do know.
So we should not say we believe the world will end – we must say what we know as a fact will happen based on science. Belief has no role to play.
Any policy calling for changes has to be based on facts and science – not beliefs if they are not so based.
There are unkowns that need to be addressed but science can point to various possibilities.
There is no loss of living standard as we are already reducing emissions as a proportion of GDP and on a per capita basis. This is all we need to do, provided we can stabilise the population, and other economies follow suite. The real problem is the disparity between emission trends between developed economies and emerging economies such as India and China etc.
Bjørn Lomborg misses the point. We have to balance carbon emissions with carbon sinks at a minimum. It would be better if we could get negative emissions.
While we cannot tell how our climate system will evolve we can see how CO2 affects that evolution. This is useful.
If there is,as you claim, “a certain non-negligible probability that nothing bad outside common human experience will happen as a result of the warming to come” then there is also a high probability that harm outside human experience will happen.
As you do not know which will prove correct we need the precautionary principle. It is the logical reflection of uncertainty where one side of the uncertainty is catastrophe.
It is not possible to base policy on one option of “if” because there are other “if”s. If all ice melts all coastline urban zones will suffer catastrophe. We have to consider precautionary steps in light of this risk after assessing its probability.
Don’s home city turned on snow, hail, sleet and rain for the AFL footy tonight.
The game started with temps about 2 c and at the end the Hawkes had a fairly easy win over the Sydney Giants.
Too bloody cold for my liking but you have to admire the young blokes and certainly no place for sissies.
Chris, you are making this really hard to answer, not because what you write is difficult to refute but because you keep invoking new things. So now what started out as a discussion on the precautionary principle has turned into something else. Therefore, let’s bring it back. I will answer what you write here in light of the precautionary principle.
Now, you start with this: “So we should not say we believe the world will end – we must say what we know as a fact will happen based on science. Belief has no role to play.”
And it comes as the first part of your answer, after I criticized what you said in your reply before that. What you did say was: “You can design a precautionary principle to ensure it is as correct as necessary. Believing that something bad could happen is sufficient to evoke some level of precaution – even if it never occurs in the future.
You never know for certain what will happen, you only know what could happen – good or bad.”
So you are telling me that belief is sufficient, but belief has no role to play. I hope you see that the reason you made these two statements, and I believe you actually thought they were good as you wrote them, is because you haven’t really thought this thing through. I hope you can agree that I could actually end the argument there since you are now making no sense whatsoever. And I hope you will be able to critically assess your own beliefs, as they are expressed in those devastatingly contradictory answers. But I will go on, not in malice, but to try to make you see that you really should reconsider.
You follow up with: “Any policy calling for changes has to be based on facts and science – not beliefs if they are not so based.”
If that is what you think, then the precautionary principle is not for you. It is an instrument set up specifically for those situations where you have fundamental uncertainty. Mark that word ‘fundamental’. We are not dealing with mere unceratinty here, but that fundamental kind where you actually do not know.
You then say: “There is no loss of living standard as we are already reducing emissions as a proportion of GDP and on a per capita basis. This is all we need to do, provided we can stabilise the population, and other economies follow suite. The real problem is the disparity between emission trends between developed economies and emerging economies such as India and China etc.”
Here you bring something else in, which is worthy of its own discussion. I will not go into it here other than saying I disagree.
Further, you state (still off on a different path): “Bjørn Lomborg misses the point. We have to balance carbon emissions with carbon sinks at a minimum. It would be better if we could get negative emissions.”
You do not know this. There is absolutely no science around stating with any kind of certainty that we have to balance sources and sinks, neither that there will be a benefit from what you call “negative emissions” which is for all practical purposes an oxymoron. That you make such a statement shows that you are in the dark on the actual uncertainties, which has huge implications when it comes to invoking the principle.
Then you make this remarkable statement: “While we cannot tell how our climate system will evolve we can see how CO2 affects that evolution. This is useful.”
I say what?? If you cannot know how the climate evolves, how can you know the effect of CO2 on that unknown? That does not makes much sense, unless you are willing to state that we actually do know for ceratin the role of CO2 in our climate system. I disagree that we have such knowledge at this point in time. And that is very important for the uncertainty when invoking that principle.
Then there is this: “If there is,as you claim, “a certain non-negligible probability that nothing bad outside common human experience will happen as a result of the warming to come” then there is also a high probability that harm outside human experience will happen.”
No. I cannot take you seriously on matters of probability if you stand by that. It is ‘not even wrong’.
Finally, you come back to the precautionary principle: “As you do not know which will prove correct we need the precautionary principle. It is the logical reflection of uncertainty where one side of the uncertainty is catastrophe.”
Catatsrophe as part of the uncertain outcomes has got nothing to do with this. It is a red herring. My claim is that you do not know the outcome of drastic cuts in fossil fuel use. You have no idea what it will do to nature and you have no idea what it will do to society. There are numerous voices saying that we are facing possible dire consequences of such alterations in our societies, all the way up to mass poverty. That would be a catastrophe all on its own, but you are not willing to consider that. And that is the point right there. In order to invoke the precautionary principle you do not get to cherry pick the direction of dire possible outcomes. In plain speak, you are not allowed to only consider climate change as cause of a possible catastrophe. You have to consider the possible catastrophic effects of the measures you are proposing, and under fundamental uncertainty you will be left fighting over what to believe. So there you have belief again, which you stated is both imperative and without a role.
What frustrates me is that you seem to almost get it, but your blinders get the best of you: “It is not possible to base policy on one option of “if” because there are other “if”s. If all ice melts all coastline urban zones will suffer catastrophe. We have to consider precautionary steps in light of this risk after assessing its probability.”
Exactly, and NO! Here you start off saying what I pointed out at the very start, and what I pointed out in the previous paragraph. You do not get to cherry pick your “if”. We agree. BUT: then you go sliding down the herring slide and start talking about wild stuff like all ice melting etc. It is absolutely pointless to talk about all ice melting, since that will take at least 1000 years and probably several 1000’s of years. But you try so hard to hold on to that one-sided catatstrophe that you have absolutely no basis for doing, and thus it goes haywire.
Frustrating, because you are so close to understanding. If you could just please open your eyes.
Anders Valland
The issue is not so much the role of belief. After all, where there is science – belief has no role.
However it is still possible to have beliefs such as believing in democracy.
Science can prove or disprove beliefs.
The likelihood of catastrophe is based on science- not belief. However if others want to argue for the preautionary principle based on belief – then fine but only if science cannot disprove their belief.
You state “There is absolutely no science around stating with any kind of certainty that we have to balance sources and sinks”. This is wrong. Simple arithmetic is sufficient. If sources exceed sinks, accumulation increases. If sinks exceed sources, accumulation decreases. If sinks equal sources, accumulation does not increase.
You suggest that there will be no “benefit from what you call “negative emissions” . This is false. Based on science (not belief sans science) negative emissions must have a benefit.
You claim that it “will take at least 1000 years and probably several 1000’s of years” for ice to melt but you have no way of knowing this and you provide no evidence. I assume this is just your belief sans science.
In short – the precautionary principle applies to science where belief has no role. But where there is insufficient science, the precautionary principle can also apply even if there are reasonable beliefs of catastrophe.
The need for negative emissions is based on science (not belief) although some others, unacquainted of the science, may hold this view based on mere belief.
Beliefs can be mistaken and have no mechanism to correct themselves. Science can be mistaken but, in time, has the means to correct itself.
Today’s need for the precautionary principle is based on the science of global warming. We do not need extra beliefs outside the science.
Meanwhile, how many sites like this does it take to produce that 1c of warming?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/bom-site-audit/sa/streaky-bay-up-view.jpg
Chris, you don’t get off the hook on the belief issue. What you write here is wrong. Wikipedia says: “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management.[1] The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. ”
Even with all the caveats on Wikipedia, this is dead center when it comes to what the principle is. All your writings in this last post fall dead against this.
When it comes to the issue of negative emissions, it was you who unequivocally stated that it would be beneficial. I made no statement in either direction, what I did was point out that you have no support whatsoever to your claim.
If you believe there is “only arithmetic” to this issue you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of the climate system. I do hope that was not what you meant, and that it was just a bad formulation on your side.
You are wrong on the precautionary principle, you do not seam to understand the role of belief and fundamental uncertainty. I really do not see a continuation of this as fruitful.
Thank you for taking your time. i hope Don will be back with more soon.
This article about Michael Moore’s latest movie sounds a bit like the Bob Brown donkeys wake up call.
Moore is an extremist lefty but even he can add up simple sums and understand that ruinables, EVs etc are powered by fossil fuels and nothing on the horizon will change things for a long time.
There is Nuclear energy of course but western countries seem to be too stupid to start building more of these safe, reliable and long lived power plants.
Lomborg has looked at the data and evidence for clueless S&W energy for many years and the sums don’t add up. We should remove all subsidies for these ruinables ASAP and only build reliable, base-load power plants like coal , gas or nuclear .
Just like China, India and non OECD have been doing for decades. And the best of luck to them for wanting reliable base-load power to build a brighter, wealthier future for their countries.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/09/michael-moore-backed-doc-planet-of-the-humans-tackles-false-promises-of-green-energy/
So, not only has Bob Brown recanted on wind farms, but Michael Moore has made a documentary panning all forms of renewabaubles!
What next? Al Gore to jet around the world, regardless of the CO2 emissions? Oh, wait ….
Seriously, which will be the next to recant? Flannery? Mann? The CRU, NASA, NOAA, BOM, CSIRO?
Here is the TOTAL energy in 2015 to run our planet. This IEA pie graph shows that fossil fuels generate 81.5% of the energy and BIO+ waste another 9.7%. That’s a TOTAL of 91.2% and since 2015 we know that co2 emissions have increased by 9 ppm or 2.25 ppm per year. See Cape Grim data.
So simple sums + data should tell us they have no chance to reduce co2 emissions while the non OECD countries have a strong desire to catch up to the wealthy countries and their much higher standard of living.
https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD4.pdf
The world will nit require any energy by 2200 the way we are going about things now.
Stu
Particularly if it is hit by an asteroid before then.
When the world wide space object tracking system is set up, the radar stations will need continuous, reliable power to operate all day every day. Unless there can be some major breakthroughs with solar, wind and batteries, or some completely new technology is developed, before then, the necessary power will be provided by either nuclear or fossil generators.
Oh the choices. Renewabaubles or asteroid defence!
One of the most amazing developments in recent decades is the complete rigging of the temperature records of every country on earth by their meteorological boffins to hoax everyone into accepting that the world is rapidly getting warmer when it is not. Even more amazing is that a small group, think Novas, Bolts etc have totally exposed this rort with minimal scientific resources and time. Bloody amazing, NOT. Get real you denialist freaks, you are in the same league as flat earthers and creationists, no hope for you unless you snap out of your self inflicted refusal to accept facts.
Oh, and SD, how much higher was the sea level in your so called 4 degree warmer world of the early holocene and how rapidly did things change back then? Your obsession with that era, on flimsy evidence, and urine does cause sane folks to question your peccadilloes and sanity.
Ever wondered why those “meteorological boffins” run as fast and far from an audit as they know how?
And even when you can see those UHIs from space, you blitherers are still the REAL deniers.
And I have already given you dozens of papers on higher SLs and temps during the HHS.
Go and read some science, and then get back to us.
I see our religious fanatics are back to believing in their fantasy world again. We’ve provided them with the proper data/evidence and they still don’t understand.
I wouldn’t mind if this didn’t cost the taxpayers an arm and a leg to produce nothing but rubbish energy and have ZERO impact on the temp or climate by 2100. IOW a complete waste of time and money.
Just the data for co2 emissions increase since 2015 should make them wake up, but once again simple sums are beyond their comprehension.
We’ve provided them with SL data from per reviewed studies and Greenland+ Antarctic temp and ice-sheet studies, yet they still prefer the comfort of their fantasy world. They just love their BS and fra-d.
In the climate debate, religion i.e. “belief” only exists in the world of the denialists, the other side follows science, facts and reality. SD, BJ and Nev should climb out their cocoons and take in the real world. I know they wont because it would threaten their tightly held “beliefs”, that is why Chris, there is no point putting up actual links, they don’t follow them. Conversely I do check out the ones they post, if only for a good laugh with most of them, they are so loose and often fraudulent in their claims.
Keep it up, Stu, you can always be relied upon to provide some light relief.
Well, we all know how you always fail to deal with the message but attack the messenger.
And you completely fail to answer a simple question but dodge it week after week.
That’s a sure sign of your honest debate [koff].
Still waiting for ‘refugees’ from the ‘sinking’ Pacific Island nations. Apparently the ‘compensation’ didn’t turn up, so there was no need for Tuvalu to disappear.
I’m sure I’m wasting my time, but here again are the CSIRO data for GHGs from Cape Grim Tas. I readily accept these fools are not very bright, but surely there can be no excuse for not understanding these records.
Their fantasy world just seems to overcome reality at every turn. Barking mad doesn’t begin to describe it.
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data
What point are you trying to make? Yes the GHG’s are going up, no argument there so I am mystified as to the relevance of your post.
Yet again Neville, calling everyone else “fools”, posts stuff that disproves his own argument.
Freudian slip for all to see.
After stressing how we must all give up producing and eating meat to save the planet from CO2 emissions, here’s an analysis of the food eaten by the UN IPCC hypocrites at the last COP24 in Poland:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/images/COP24menu-Melissa-Amarello-Center-for-Biological-Diversity.jpg
SD, since you wont answer the question I will do it for you. Paleo studies have shown that in short periods way back the sea level rose 5metres in 100 years due to warming. In case you have trouble with simple maths that is 5 cm per year, which is very fast. So based on your own numbers this is what could happen before 2100. Never mind, you stick with your inconsistent arguments.
Stu, I think you deliberately confuse yourself to defend the indefensible. Try to stick to specifics.
We are discussing the Holocene high stand [you know, the era of civilisation] where there are a huge number of studies showing well indicated sea level rise of up to 3 metres, high latitude treeline movement of great distances etc that indicate warming of up to 7c higher than present.
This is natural climate variability that has commonly occurred during the HHS with low CO2 concentrations and the change can often be more rapid than anything we are seeing today.
But I have been asking you for a long time; if you have any evidence of anything that is happening today that is any different from what has happened during the last 80 centuries, feel free to advise us.
Still waiting patiently.
If it takes 5 times more energy to heat water 1 degree than it does to heat sand, then as the seashore warms the water level may apparently fall. Unfortunately water level is increased further by melting land ice.
Is this why denialists only look at relative sea levels?
It is a dirty, unscientific, trick to boost their dogmas.
Science defeats denialism.
SD is correct about the much higher temps during the Holocene climate optimum. This MacDonald et al study found temps were
2 to 7 c higher than today across northern Russia and the tree line extended much further north for thousands of years.
SLs were at least 1.5 metres higher on the east coast of OZ just 4,000 years ago ( see ABC Catalyst) and some recent studies show even higher levels at that time. Yet today we have Coral atoll island studies that show most island groups are either stable or have increased in land area over the last 30 years. See Kench etc.
So where is this dangerous SLR that we have been regularly warned about in the MSM since 1990? And OZ cyclones have shown a lower trend for the last 50 years. That’s for severe and non severe cyclones according to the BOM.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233
More incompetence from Neville.
Neville did not read the paper he cited. The cause for the warmer region was local impact of Milankovitch cycles, associated deglaciation [pg 307] and a moving isotherm. Insolation at the time was an extra 45 watts/m or so, compared to 1950 [see fig 4]
The point is that in 1950 we were experiencing temperatures similar to Holocene temps BUT without the natural causes that applied then.
The paper therefore proves global warming because we are not in the same Milancovitch position and solar insolation is 45 watts/m less.
SD, you really don’t research your posts very well do you. Yes there have been ups and downs of temperature during the early holocene. In some specific places there were changes on the scale you claim but none of that scale for the average temperature of the earth. So yes, at a time the Arctic may have been even 8 degrees warner (in summer) but less so in winter. Science ascribes those changes to many factors. The primary factors being orbital changes causing the main glacial/non glacial eras. The glacial retreat caused such mass change that there were earth rebound effects, still going in slowly which cloud the record. (Did you see the temperatures in Greenland last week?)
If you want to talk about ‘global’ temperatures on that scale you have to go back to the PETM about 55 million years ago.
Perhaps you should drop your preoccupation with the Holocene and start considering the Anthropocene. Admittedly the final definition of this epoch is still undergoing debate within the science community, but mainly as to the start point. It is of more relevance to the present.
The issue now is that with AGW, we are effectively experimenting with the global climate by massive addition of GHG’s. Research has indicated that the changes in the cryosphere, oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere etc appear to be leading to possible runaway climate effects previously only generated by orbital changes.
It appears that the past rapid scale of change you talk of could happen again soon given the current rate of warming. Of course I overlook the fact that you think that 2 degrees of global warming is trivial, unlike generally accepted scientific thinking.
And no, I won’t give you pointers to the research. You are a big boy now and can find the stuff yourself, it is very easy, if you are truly interested and have an open mind.
Meantime you can daydream about the wonderful times past.
Did you notice it is cold again this weekend? That is called weather!
Stop cherry picking your replies stu.
It wasn’t just the Arctic that was warmer, there are dozens of papers that show much warmer periods during the Holocene at all latitudes.
Based on [among other things] the sound evidence of observable, elevated coastal shelves with huge oyster beds still intact.
I have already provided you with this data.
This is factual climate temperature rise on a global scale, many times more than we are seeing today.
Could that be why you are unable to answer and continually dodging my simple question?
Why don’t you just be honest and admit you are wrong about our 1c-warming-since-the-coldest-period-in-civilisation?
It is mostly, if not all, Nat Var.
And did you notice anything about that “weather”?
Whether it is hot or cold you can have thermometers on various verandahs of the same house and you will get temperature variations at any one time that are far greater than our “climate crisis” warming you are bed wetting about.
A wall is all you need for a UHI effect.
We are currently in the lowest quartile of known temperature fluctuations during the Holocene.
Just be thankful that it still seems to be rising and not falling.
The cold is much worse for your enuresis.
Holocene temps compared to last century.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
This is no hockey stick.
And the spice will continue for the next 100 years at the same rate.
Yes, blith, we know that the true believers’ assumption-based temperature range for the Holocene is a conveniently-assumed 0.5c.
It’s just a shame it doesn’t tally with all the observable facts.
You know, tree lines, sea levels, oyster beds, etc.
Could that possibly be why you only produce back-yard graphs and no measurable evidence?
As usual.
spice => spike
We have no dangerous SLR according to many recent studies and the Greenland instrumental data disproves the Marcott study. See Vinther and other study I’ve linked to before and the earlier 20th century showed a higher trend than today. So wrong again.
BTW here is an interesting finding from the York Uni tool. If you zero the temp at 1979.7 and check the trend to 1998.99 ( peak of the el nino ) you get 0.159 c/ dec.
Then set the start date at 2000.1 ( zero again) and the end date at the highest el nino of 2016.95 you have a trend of 0.109 c/ dec. Or lower than the earlier trend.
If you also extend the trend to the present day 2000.1 to 2019.8 you find 0.132 c/dec or about the same as the 40 year trend.
BTW I used UAH V 6 data for this and I may have made a mistake, but I hope someone will check. Here’s the tool.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Silly Nevile, tries to hide behind the Vinter study.
Ha, ha, ha …
When you look at the entire Artic region you get a different story.
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426/figures/2
Focusing on Greenland is cherry-picking.
The cherry-picking probably originates from the ton of mad Monk and Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes.
More info is at: https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Denialists are now just a laughing stock are are reduced to just a few hecklers from the sidelines.
Science moves on.
Chris
“Denialists are now just a laughing stock are are reduced to just a few hecklers from the sidelines.”
I must say how much I admire your missionary fervour, and Stu’s as well.
You spend hours taliking to “denialists” (= scepptics), whom you claim to be a “laughing stock”. Yet despite massive effort, extending across many threads, not only have you not convinced SD, Neville and me, you also seem not to have convinced our blog host.
I suspect that Don is both smarter and more widely educated than any of us, yet he still keeps posting sceptical articles.
In the words of Oliver Cromwell, “Think it possible that you may be wrong”.
It is amazing that you guys have all this knowledge that seems to have escaped notice by all the world met establishments. True Galileo stuff eh, dream on. Dunning-Kruger at its best.
And BTW for Don. On the home page there is a long list of resource sites. Practically all denial palaces. I wonder if he realises some of them like sceptical science may be should not be there because they run counter to the general theme here. At the least there is quite an imbalance of stuff there.
Stu
“And BTW for Don. On the home page there is a long list of resource sites. Practically all denial palaces. I wonder if he realises some of them like sceptical science may be should not be there because they run counter to the general theme here. At the least there is quite an imbalance of stuff there.”
Perhaps Don is more open minded than you?
Denialist
Wipe the tears from your eyes and look around you…
http://www.realclimate.org/images//shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png
Isn’t it amazing how true believers can believe so strongly but can never produce measureable evidence.
And continually dodge simple questions.
Could it possibly that their belief has never had anything to do with the science?
So they must adjust the science to support their belief?
Were you not watching? We covered the belief thing, you guys are the religious ones. I have asked before are you also anti-vaccination?
Stu
“Anti-vaccination”? Ever ready to toss in the insult, you and Chris both.
Chris also tosses in nicotine and the moon landings. Lift your game!
It is just that often the lack of logic links those conspiracy theories. Often a high correlation. Same goes for support of Tony Abbott!
Stu
Good to know that you are such an expert psychologist that you can make diagnoses based purely on short blog posts.
Give up the alarmism, you have a great career ahead of you in psychology. (Sarc).
Not only that, you can divine which specific politician a poster supports.
Brilliant!
Steve McIntyre challenged Marcott 2013 from the beginning, particularly the uptick at the end. In this post he refers a number of times to the upside down Mann data as well.
https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/
This is for all the Greenland cheery-pickers.
The result of looking at the northern slice of the northern hemisphere (30° to 90°).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Poschlod/publication/295548652/figure/fig9/AS:331985726787586@1456162973473/Decade-average-temperature-trend-in-the-non-tropical-northern-hemisphere-90-to-30N_W640.jpg
You can add in the data for 2000 – 2019 yourself.
Poor old McIntyre, stuffed again….
Here is trend to 2100
Notice any uptick??
https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png
Good old Steve has popped up again. As his website says “the tip jar is open again”. He must have run short of cash. SD, BJ and Co I am confident you can help him out with a large donation to keep the bulldust moving.
Here is how one place describes his “work”.
“McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003” and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.” Unsuccessfully though.
They go on to say
“McIntyre became embroiled in a row with psychology researchers at the University of Western Australia, including Professor Stephan Lewandowsky. Lewandowsky was the lead author on research finding that endorsement of conspiracy theories, such as NASA faking the Apollo moon landings, was linked to the rejection of climate science. ” Sounds like good research, I must dig it up.
Interesting fellow, but as usual not a climate scientist.
Stu
And yet, despite being “not a climate scientist”, he destroyed the Hockey Stick.
Imagine what he could have done had he been one?
PS, are Gore, Flannery, Garnaut or Stern climate scientists?
“Sounds like good research, I must dig it up”
Don’t bother. Lewandowsky was silly enough to become embroiled with John Cook in the 97% fiasco, and I believe was his Ph supervisor. He was co-author of another silly psycho-social publication with Cook (endorsement of conspiracy theories, such as NASA faking the Apollo moon landings, was linked to the rejection of climate science). Both have, probably advisedly, retired from the public climate scene, though Cook is still advertised as an Assistant Research Professor in Climate Communication at George Mason University. One wonders how long till the carousel stops.
Is McIntyre Neville’s bedfellow?
McIntye has been debunked. It is hard to keep track of the number of posts WUWT dedicated to this study, and the statistical wonderboy McIntyre is also energetically producing blog posts.
See more at:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-two-epochs-of-marcott/
Notice any upticks????
The IPCC accepts the HAD 4 data as the best of the surface temp data-sets. In the BBC 2010 interview with Jones he showed that all the 4 warming trends from 1850 to 2010 were the same. IOW no stat significant difference in the 4 warming trends over that 160 year period.
Don’t forget this is just 9 years ago and yet today we are expected to believe that everything has changed because of so called AGW, but there was no difference in the trends up to 2010.
Then we’ve had these hockey stick graphs that have emerged showing supposed upticks, yet we know that this doesn’t apply to Antarctica or Greenland data, in a number of recent Holocene studies.
Also SLR is not showing any sudden rise if you look at OZ or the Coral atoll island studies over the last 30 years. And recently Ole Humlum found just 1 to 1.5 mm a year of SLR, or the same as the previous century.
Here’s that Jones BBC interview in 2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
can Neville be so stupid?
Of course the warming trend is constant.
This is what you would expect. So far the increase in temp. is linear. This means the trend is constant.
If the trend increases (and this may occur) – we are in deep trouble.
Again Neville has uploaded stuff that disproves his own claims.
Have we got another Drongo?
Can Chris be so stupid?
There were four separate warming periods covered, interspersed with cooling periods. Despite different CO2 levels, each warming period displayed the same warming trend.
Far from the increase in temperature being linear, it was a jagged sawtooth pattern.
Quote: “…. it was a jagged sawtooth pattern.”
So denialists now resort to lies.
Or is it the alarmists lying?
Go look up the graph.
What cherry-picked graph?
Chris
“What cherry-picked graph?”
First, go find it yourself, you claim to be a red hot researcher. Try Google, or is that too hard for you?
Second, good to see an open mind. You have not seen the graph, but “know” that it is “cherry picked”.
No graph Boambee is a lying Boambee.
Chris is an incompetent Googler!
Chris
I must apologise. You might not be an incompetent Googler.
I had forgotten that Google deliberately makes hard to find (censors?) information that does not fit the “narrative”. Having “Jones … showed that all the 4 warming trends from 1850 to 2010 were the same. IOW no stat significant difference in the 4 warming trends over that 160 year period” would certainly meet the necessary criteria.
Perhaps try Duck Duck Go?
So Boambee cannot even use Google to find his cited graph.
So what graph?
Or is this another lie just like Australia being a sink.
Facts drown denialists.
Our resident bed-wetters are in denial that Steve McIntyre completely debunked Mann’s Hockey Stick to the point where Mann still hasn’t provided data because he knows it is dubious.
And our same bed-wetters are completely incapable of falsifying any of McIntyre’s message.
But that doesn’t stop the from ridiculing McIntyre.
Such is their “science”.
As puerile as our the ABC with Trump.
And they have the arrogance to accuse others of an “attitude” to science.
The Hockey Stick and “hide the decline” has been invalidated so many times in so many ways but the believers reconjure the same delusion because that is the only fake data that supports their philosophy.
Faith in true belief is a wonderful thing. When you can’t argue, just keep repeating what your religion has taught you.
And the more they can get to sing the chorus the more it beats measureable evidence for them.
Here is quite a good video on the subject of climate change. No, not for SD, Nev and BJ but for any other folk with rational and open minds. The guy speaks very quickly but covers everything quite well. Even Don might find it enlightening particularly the scaling of humans against earth time. In earth time we just appeared and somehow for the last ten thousand years scored the most suitable period for building civilisation. But thIngs are changing, thanks to us, and the earth will go on, probably without us. Scary thought.
https://youtu.be/GYJDAmDX2dM
What’s your scientific point, stu?
Your mate Joe makes the same evidence-free assumptions [and ignores the obvious] as you do.
spangled drongo
Duck over to Catallaxy and check the comment number 3128710 on page 4 of the August 10 Open Thread.
I’m not sure what to make of it, wonder what you think.
Thanks BJ.
Yes, Nils Axel Morner is perfectly correct. He is arguably the most knowledgeable scientist in the world when it comes to sea levels.
Whenever a serious audit is done, what it shows is there is nothing happening.
When we get a GPS chip on every long term tide gauge we will be able to show exactly that but until then the true believers can cherry pick their preferred results.
Not to mention the satellite “measurements” which are the result of GIGO computers counting dancing angels.
But those same cherry picking believers will never go and check sea walls and well known data that will give them that factual, inconvenient answer.
I know families who have been in the little ship maintenance business with boat slips for generations who would kill for some sea level rise as it would improve their business.
But, if anything, sea levels are falling and they are forced to use more expensive haul-out techniques, like cranes, for deeper draughted vessels.
It is a pity that around the US coastline there is so much land movement as a result of rebound from 3 mile high ice sheets that melted 10,000 years ago and similar in a lot of the NH but because Australia didn’t have that problem and is generally older and more weathered, its tide gauges are more reliable.
Your little cult is so self serving. Post whatever you like, it only convinces those in the cult. Rational people like Chris just shake the head, such is the bullshit you call facts. Even whackos like Curry don’t agree with all your unsubstantiated bullshit, she mostly tries to retain a semblance of credibility. Have you noticed the mainstream science people now just ignore the rubbish put out by the people you quote. They have more important things to do.
And stop and think. As stated before, even if your crap was to be proven true, you have lost the debate (not in this tiny space but globally). Even in USA the bulk of states are moving on and ignoring the road blocks of the fossil friendly republicans and Donald. Even your oft quoted IEA is on board, check out their paper on Australia. The car manufacturers are sticking with Obama rules for fuel efficiency and ignoring Trumps EPA. Etc, etc. The game is over.
So get on board and start discussing the options for mitigation, decarbonisation etc. it would be much more interesting, positive, constructive and less boring than your continual weak attempts at denial.
Stu
Was this inane drivel addressed to me?
Regardless, the argument that others are being silly, and therefore we should follow, has a lemming-like quality to it that fits in with your general approach.
Feel free to follow your own advice, however. Lead by example. Start by decarbonising your own life. Solar and wind power only, off grid. EV charged from your own power sources, with carbon offsets to cover the EV’s production. Strict locovore diet, nothing that has been moved by fossil fuelled vehicles. Water collected of your roof, or caried by hand from tbe nearest stream. Septic system (with carbon offsets, of course) or long drop toilet. All waste disposed on site.
That would be a good start, I will add to the list once you have got this far.
Let us know how you are going.
Or do you follow the Augustinian policy, “Make me pure, but not just yet”?
That is plain silly, not worthy of you. The solution requires global action over decades, starting as soon as possible for best outcome not individual actions although it all will help. I happen to believe that the ingenuity of the human race can find the answers. The rate of advance of technology is stupendous and still accelerating, fortunately. But people have to get their heads out of the sand and support action. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?
Stu
But, but, but, we are regularly told that Australia must lead the way, set an example to the world. I am simply taking that one step further back, to say that Stu (possibly Chris too) should set an example to Australia.
And “not worthy of (me)”? After some of the things you have written about me, I feel flattered!
As for that pathetic question “Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?” It is usually a sign that the questioner has no argument to offer, and is trying to bluff their interlocutor.
You are, however, quite correct about advances in technology, yet you want to commit billions, or even trillions, to a technology that is, in its present state, manifestly inadequate. Is that really sensible?
“Even whackos like Curry”
Judith Curry is a well-respected scientist, was Head of a University Department, runs a successful, and presumably profitable, forecasting business, and has been invited, more than once, to testify before the US Congress. Despite the assessments of DeSmog and Sceptical (silly) Science, hardly the profile of a “whacko”.
Yes she is respected by some, or was, before she set off on the money making train. Testifying before Congress when invited by the dingbat James Inhofe (ex head of Senate Environment Committee) is not exactly a great credit. He also called other great climate scientists like Chris Monckton. She is not as far right as her fellow traveller, Willy Soon, but close. Her current schtick is running a forecasting business which seems more related to weather than climate. But she still tools around with climate change denialists including McIntyre. When claimed academics play with unqualified partners you have to question the credibility, sorry.
Stu
“Yes she is respected by some, or was, before she set off on the money making train.”
Pot meet kettle. A strong supporter of the renewabaubles industry, which is essentially a vast subsidy harvesting (ie, money making train) business criticises someone for allegedly wanting to make money.
How many alarmists have made fortunes from their alarmism?
These donkeys couldn’t be more wrong. Other than the adjustments made to HAD 4 after the Jones interview there is clearly nothing to show any AGW at all. The earlier warming trends were adjusted down and the later trends were adjusted up. What a mob of con merchants, but plenty of dopes will fall for it.
We can point to the SL data to prove our point from the REAL PHYSICAL planet, not fra-dulent adjustments to try and cook the books. The ice-sheet data also proves our case as well and from both Greenland and Antarctica,
When in doubt real thinkers follow the data not fra-dulent temp adjustments to fool delusional group-thinkers.
.
Quote – “… there is clearly nothing to show any AGW at all. ”
Denialists now resort to lies.
And alarmists (as usual) to personal abuse.
Crimals are criminals, liars are liars, and denialists are denialists, psychopaths are psychopaths .
Now they want to censor the rest of us.
Chris
“Crimals are criminals, liars are liars, and denialists are denialists, psychopaths are psychopaths .”
And slanderers are slanderers, who have no substantive point to make, so throw unsubstantiated abuse instead.
Where is your evidence that we are trying to censor you?
Actually Neville’s are slanderers.
But liars are worse.
Chris
Still with the personal abuse.
It must be fun eating out with you. Suggesting that a different menu item might be tastier would be greeted with “Lies”! Criticising your choice with “Slander”!
Chris
I don’t want to censor you, I prefer that your silliness be openly displayed.
However, with your perpetual silly comments about “denialists” (really sceptics) you are doing your best to censor us.
On the contrary – I require you to keep sprouting because I love a good laugh and denialist “no graph” liars need to be exposed.
Please, for heavens sake – don’t stop.
Sorry Chris, that was my line.
Plagiarist!
PS, see my comment above about Google.
What graph, no graph?
What sink, no sink?
Denialist cannot even use Google.
On the evidence of his own statements, neither can alarmist!
So it was all lies;
There is no sink
There is no graph
All lies?
Chris reduced to “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, I can’t find it so you are a liar”.
I do so love a civilised debate!
So no global graph?
So no Aussie sink?
All lies.
Why lie, has denialism failed?
Liar,
I have specifically said that I want denialists to keep sprouting.
It is all in your head.
But only after I said I wanted you babbling on.
“Crimals [sic] are criminals, liars are liars, and denialists are denialists, psychopaths are psychopaths .”
What would you call people who brainwash and indoctrinate little kiddies and teach them what to think instead of how to think?
SD
Psychopaths?
There are dozens or hundreds of religious nuts running around the streets. We don’t take any notice of them, or joke about them, until we oppose the orthodoxy, and become DENIERS. Sound familiar? The drum-beat in the distance is, unfortunately, all too real.
These words from Mary Robinson, ex President of Ireland and head of UN Human rights body are very interesting.
“The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.
Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.
She also told the Guardian she supports climate protests, including the school strikes for climate founded by “superstar” Greta Thunberg, and that “there is room for civil disobedience as a way of communicating, though we also need hope”.
Robinson is chair of the Elders, an independent group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela that works for human rights. She will say in her speech: “I believe that climate change denial is not just ignorant, it is malign, it is evil, and it amounts to an attempt to deny human rights to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”
“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.
“Climate change undermines the enjoyment of the full range of human rights – from the right to life, to food, to shelter and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate change.”
Thoughts?
Stu
Well, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “She would say that, wouldn’t she?”
She seems somewhat relaxed about denying the poor of the world access to reliable electric power, while enjoying its benefits herself. Perhaps she could follow the course I suggested you follow?
“Lead by example. Start by decarbonising your own life. Solar and wind power only, off grid. EV charged from your own power sources, with carbon offsets to cover the EV’s production. Strict locovore diet, nothing that has been moved by fossil fuelled vehicles. Water collected of your roof, or caried by hand from tbe nearest stream. Septic system (with carbon offsets, of course) or long drop toilet. All waste disposed on site.”
She would have to give up international air travel too.
“Robinson is chair of the Elders,” Yet another self-selected bunch eager to tell everyone else how to live, while not leading by example?
Shablok is merely spreading denialism to facilitate India’s skyrocketing increase in per-capita CO2 emissions;
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS:CAN:AUT&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
coupled with a fertility rate over 2;
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS:CAN:AUT&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
Given that the world fertility rate is even higher, and global per capita CO2 emissions are “trending up”, it seems we really are throwing the future environment into catastrophe.
We need the combination of global fertility rate and global per capita emissions rates to fall.
There is no alternative.
Chris
“coupled with a fertility rate over 2;”
“We need the combination of global fertility rate and global per capita emissions rates to fall.”
I have told you before that both India and China have made significant efforts to reduce their birth rates.
China had some success with its “One Child” policy for some decades. Being a totalitarian state probably assisted, allowing forced sterilisations and abortions to be imposed, but even there public pressure has forced some relaxation of the policy recently.
India, starting under Indira Gandhi, tried a theoretically “voluntary”scheme, which often involved low level bribery and coercion. Again, public pressure caused the impact to be limited.
You are only going to get world population growth to reach the low levels of the developed world by either allowing economic development world wide (which almost inevitably will.increae CO2 emissions), or by dictatorial methods, more robust than those used in China.
Which will you recommend to the “adult conversation between adults” that you seem to favour?
Boambee John
No evidence – probably more lies.
Chris
Are you totally ignorant of the history of the last 40 or so years? If you are unaware of the issues I mentioned in relation to India and China, it would certainly seem so.
And, NO, I am not going to waste time attempting to educate you.
If you say you need references on so basic a subject, one of particular interest to you, then nothing you say has any value.
Your allegation that I have lied about this is outright slander.
Earlier this year Dr Spencer wrote an article for the Washington Times and answered some of the so called gang of 58 so called scientists silly nonsense.
These dopes even claimed a CAT 1 hurricane as part of their CAGW delusion, fair dinkum these intellectual runts never cease to amaze us. Don’t forget the USA had a ten year drought of CAT 3 or above hurricanes in recent times. See Dr Ryan Maue’s research.
This is well worth the time to read and understand what it means to be a serious scientist at the top of his form. Ditto Dr John Christy who has studied temp databases for a long time and knows how to check out and challenge their so called CAGW.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/13/what-are-the-opponents-of-donald-trumps-climate-re/
Forget the silly nonsense from the Neville-dopey-runt.
Here is Judith Curry’s (and co) data on cyclones. Unlike Neville-dopey-runt, she covers all categories of cyclones.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/agu_integrityofscience_curry.pdf
It shows no real increase in number but a strong trend for CAT 4 & 5 to increase as a percentage of events.
This is why the Neville-dopey-runt only cherry-picked CAT 1 and CAT 3 – a standard denialist trick.
This is a good example of how denialists falsify science.
“Chris Warren
August 12, 2019 at 9:45 am
Forget the silly nonsense from the Neville-dopey-runt.”
Really can’t help yourself with the personal abuse, can you?
Denialists don’t like it when they get paid back in their own coin.
Wgich is why I have adopted that policy of paying you in own coin for your perperual idiocies.
I think the last sentence of the article exposes Spencers position and motivation. “ a senior fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.”
What they themselves say about the organisation:
“The Cornwall Alliance is a network of evangelical Christian scholars–mostly natural scientists, economists, policy experts, theologians, philosophers, and religious leaders–dedicated to educating the public and policymakers about Biblical earth stewardship (men and women working together to enhance the fruitfulness, beauty, and safety of the earth, to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors), economic development for the poor (through private property rights, entrepreneurship, free trade, limited government, the rule of law, and access to abundant, affordable, reliable energy), and the gospel of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God by grace through faith in the atoning death and vindicating resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Of course people can believe what they want but when it starts to get in the way of actual science research and its interpretation it deserves to be called out.
This is what they do:
“Our network of theologians, scientists, economists, and other scholars and leaders work together to promote, primarily through education, three things simultaneously:
Biblical earth stewardship, or “godly dominion”—men and women working together to enhance the fruitfulness, beauty, and safety of the earth to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors;
economic development for the world’s poor; and
the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ,
all in a world permeated by an environmental movement whose worldview, theology, and ethics are overwhelmingly anti-Christian, whose science and economics are often poorly done, whose policies therefore often do little good for natural ecosystems but much harm to the world’s poor, and whose religious teachings undermine the fundamental Christian doctrines of God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation.”
At least there are opposing christian views so I guess we can call their combined efforts a draw.
“In July 2006, the Cornwall Alliance published an open letter in response to Christian leaders of the Evangelical Climate Initiative who had, in February of the same year, expressed concern over man-made global warming, urging legislators to consider a cap-and-trade system, promoting new technology and reducing carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Advisory board member Wayne Grudem was quoted in reply saying, “It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth by doing such ordinary and morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food.”
So it cant be us because god did not design the earth that way! As a blaspheming nonbeliever might say “jesus christ, can you believe that?”
Best to ignore the resident morons. Here is Dr Spencer’s latest post on the various temp data-bases and there seems to be much more spurious warming over the last few years from ERA5 data.
Many comments at his blog as they try to thrash out the meaning of this outlier. Certainly a lot more extreme than UAH V 6 data over that period of time. I wonder why, but no big surprise?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-374644
Forget the Spencer stuff posted by moron-dopey-runt-Neville
Global-average temperature for June 2019 was also the highest on record for the month. It was about 0.1°C higher than that of the previous warmest June, in 2016, following a strong El Niño event.
See: https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june
And also for July;
The global average temperature for July 2019 was on a par with, and possibly marginally higher than, that of July 2016, which followed an El Niño event. This was previously the warmest July and warmest month of all on record. However, the difference between temperatures in July 2019 and July 2016 is small.
See: https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures
The problem is that these warming trends will continue.
Denialists are getting desperate now.
Chris
Looking at your recent postings, you are the one showing clear signs of desperation.
BTW the York Uni tool also shows that RSS V4 is 1.57 times the trend of UAH V6, since DEC 1978. That’s 0.203c/ dec compared to 0.129 c/ dec. Why is it so? Just asking.
I see our nifty Nev is even playing science posting on the spencer site. Looks like he might be out of his depth with his weird selection of start and end dates for his “analysis”. Rubbery science.
I see now why RSS v 4 is showing so much extra warming and some other data-sets have also chosen to ignore the spurious warming signals. Thanks again to Roy, D.Appell and John Christy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
Spencer’s, fake data has been examined and debunked…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming
Why is it that only denialists spread Spencer data-smears across the blogosphere?
Science proceeds with corroboration from different independent data sets – not lone outlier sources.
Chris
“Spencer’s, fake data has been examined and debunked…”
The Grauniad! ROFLMAO!
Still, it was the source of an item I posted a few days ago on the travails of the Indian population control effort a few days ago, so I suppose even a busted clock can be right a couple of times a day. You did read the item, didn’t you? Or do you avoid uncomfortable realities?
Frightened you might see yourself in a mirror perhaps?
Yet more spurious warming comparing RSS 4 to the other data-sets at York Uni tool site. This is the full satellite data from DEC 1978 to August 2019 and the other surface data for that period.
In fact the RSS 3 data is only 0.005c ( or 5 thousands of 1 degree c) warmer than the present UAH V 6 data and RSS 4 is the spurious outlier over the last 40 years. It doesn’t even pass the pub test or the smell test.
RSS 4 0.203 c/ dec
RSS 3 0.134 c/ dec
UAH v 6 0.129 c/ dec
GISS 3 0.174 c/ dec
GISS 4 0.186 c /dec
Had 4 Kr 0.187 c /dec
Had 4sst 0.187 c/ dec
Geez Neville, with such scientific acumen I expect Huntsville will be offering you a job soon, brilliant.
Stu
Pretty sure, however, that you will not make the cut.
RSS 3 is not current. GISTEMP 3 is deprecated.
Berkley is around 0.188
So 0.187 to 0.203 is a tight fit as the range is .016. All these measures are consistent and corroborate each other.
Spencers data 0.129 is .58 below so is clearly an outlier with spurious cooling.
Spencers data is inconsistent as many have revealed.
.58 => .058
It’s amazing how the blitherers want to use data and evidence of climate crisis from the most dubious sources which, like the IPCC GCMs that are 95% wrong and getting wronger, are exaggerated by assumption to suit belief rather than reality.
Why don’t they stick with closer comparison to data that is known to be real-world, ie radiosonde?
If only the climate crisis believers would accept reality, argue from facts and produce believable evidence, they would improve their cred enormously.
Even though it would be harder for them to indoctrinate the kiddies.
First Bob Brown condemned wind farms as hideous destroyers of the landscape and killers of birds and bats.
Then Michael Moore made a documentary condemning solar and wind, and hinting at dark corporate profit making.
Now, Professor Andy Pitman, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, and a Lead Author for the IPCC, has jumped ship.
In June Professor Andy Pitman quietly dropped a bomb:
“…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”
“…there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.“
He’s admitting there’s never been a scientific basis for the endless climate drought scares? He went on to say that in Australia, droughts are not increasing, and there’s no drying trend in one hundred years of data. He’s also admitting the models can’t predict extremes in rain either.
Yes, Chris and Stu, it is via Jo Nova, but she is the messenger. Pitman is the climate scientist who has f@rted in the church of climatology. Who will be next? Given that it is the drought hypothesis that is under attack, perhaps Flannery?
For the alarmist deniers.
The SEI forum: Adapting Climate Science for Business
Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.
At 1:11:20
Professor Andy Pitman:
“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.
If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.
There are in some regions but not in other regions.
So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.
Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”
BJ droughts in OZ are mostly caused by strong el nino events and longer positive IOD events. Here is the BOMs time series graph for rainfall from 1900 to 2018.
There was a much drier period from 1922 to the late 1940s and even the wet 1950s doesn’t look as impressive on this overall OZ graph. The 1960s had a short dry period but using the moving average graph we can easily see that the period after 1970 has had much higher rainfall, even southern OZ.
But SW WA and Tassie have had reduced rainfall for the last 30 years and Vic rainfall is starting to reduce because of longer positive and neutral IODs. That occurs when the water off the NW of OZ stays cooler for longer periods of time.
Just like the period 1992 to 2009 , but did break and change in 2010 and ’11. Much more flooding.
The MDB floods in 2016 were also caused by a negative IOD or warmer waters off the NW coast. Here’s the BOM anomaly graph including a 7 year moving average. This makes it much easier to understand.
Don’t forget the period from 1895 to 1902 was very dry and called the FED drought.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=6
BJ here is the discovery and study summary about the IOD from Uni NSW in 2009. The following year switch caused flooding from the negative IOD in 2010 and ’11. I just hope it changes in the next short while again. IOW we need some warmer water over the NW of OZ ASAP.
https://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-causes-big-dry-drought-mystery-solved
Silence from the alarmists? Trying to work out how to frame Pitman as not a “real” climate scientist?
Or just burying tbeir heads in the sand and denying that anything has happened?
The link to the article in the Times of India is broken. Doe anyone have the link? If so could you please post it here.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/why-should-we-subsidise-tomorrows-rich-in-the-name-of-the-climate/
BJ I should have referred to the latest ENSO and IOD wrap from the BOM. Things don’t look good for a break in the drought , with both ENSO and IOD at the moment.
A change to La Nina and a negative IOD would be very welcome by many graziers, farmers and govts etc. We can only hope. Here is the latest BOM wrap.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
In 2015 Dr Hansen called out the Paris circus as BS and fra-d and since then some other lefties have started to doubt their long held belief in mitigation of their so called CAGW. Michael Moore is one recent example and Bob Brown doesn’t like wind farms in his area of Tassie at all.
But let’s look at the evidence for mitigation over the last 30 years. In 1990 co2 levels were about 350 ppm or McKibben and Hansen’s agreed upper level to aim for in their fight against so called CAGW.
The OECD countries emissions have flat-lined for a long period and are now about the same as their 1990 levels, but the non OECD led by China, India etc have allowed their co2 emission to soar since 1990 and they are still building big numbers of coal fired stations.
African countries also want industries and a higher standard of living and will build huge numbers of coal fired stns if they have the finance to do so. And total African population is now 1300 mil or similar in size to China and India.
I think China will supply that future finance and design and build those new CF stations and perhaps gas and nuclear as well.
But co2 levels have increased by about 60 ppm since 1990, because of the non OECD countries co2 emissions and there is clearly no evidence that the OECD countries can reduce those levels for a very long time. In fact co2 levels have risen by 9 ppm since 2015 or by 2.25 ppm/ year.
Everyone understands that voters in OECD countries have no stomach for paying higher and higher electricity prices for a guaranteed ZERO return today, tomorrow or by 2100. The OZ election has proved the point and Qld swung strongly behind Adani and the Coalition govt.
But that big jump in co2 levels since 1990 should make any rational person understand the folly of their so called mitigation of their so called CAGW. Hansen was correct, it is all “just BS and fra-d”.
But then again who cares if you’re a fantasist living in your fantasy world? And anyway they couldn’t care less about simple sums and science because it’s the politics that drives them on.
If the models were wrong about drought, and can’t handle clouds, what use are they? Do the projections of future disaster have any validity?
BJ, in this crazy, mixed up world with its post modernist promoters, eco-warriors and leftist elites wanting to eradicate the things that work yet have never worked in their lives [After arriving in their private jets, mega yachts and sports cars, delegates were treated to a lecture on climate change by Prince Harry, who delivered it in his bare feet] validity is the last thing considered.
Geeeezzzz SD I would love to have a transcript of his speech, I’m sure it was packed full of the latest data and evidence about their so called CAGW and co2 levels etc. SARC.
Boambee John
No evidence as usual.
Tell us how the models are right about drought and how well they handle clouds, blith.
You should have these details at your fingertips seeing how you preach this gospel on a daily basis.
What’s that you say?
You simply don’t know?
Well we’ve been telling you for years that you have no measurable evidence.
But now you reckon we need the evidence to prove you don’t have the evidence?
How about you just put up or shut up!
What a non-funny joke you are.
SD
Chris has put himself in the position where he has to either:
Argue that the models are brilliant and fantastically accurate, in which case Pitman, head of the climate CRC and an IPCC lead author, doesn’t know what he is talking about; or
The models are useless (at least as regards drought), but a bunch of top climate scientists independently of the models, looked at the base data, and concluded that droughts are linked to climate change, and Pitman has said, in effect, that they got it completely wrong. Hence climate scientists are not, contra Chris, infallible.
Chris
Incapable of even finding evidence when it is right in front of your eyes, as usual.
See my post at 2013 yesterday.
So no evidence then.
Typical.
Chris
The Chris definition of “evidence”: material which supports his prejudices.
I guess you have now consigned Pitman (head at the CRC on climate, and an IPCC lead author) to the category of denialist, whose publications are now unreliable (un-published?) because he has said the unsayable?
You are aware, are you, that 1984 was a warning, not a “How To” guide?
Consensus and popularity are wot count with brainless blitherers.
Consensus and popularity are not authority or validity but that is how the algorithm sees it.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/10/how-google-discriminates-against-conservatives-and-skeptics/
This is what happens even in the Union of Concerned Scientists if you don’t stick to the consensus and instead try telling the truth:
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/08/banned-for-posting-temperature-data/
Our stu will be so relieved to know this; er – won’t he?
After all the blurb by the Hot Gospel preachers in the MSM and the bed-wetting websites it seems the Danish climate body wrongly reported Greenland heat record.
The Danish Meteorological Institute, which has a key role in monitoring Greenland’s climate, last week reported a shocking August temperature of between 2.7C and 4.7C at the Summit weather station, which is located 3,202m above sea level at the centre of the Greenland ice sheet, generating a spate of global headlines.
But on Wednesday it posted a tweet saying that a closer look had shown that monitoring equipment had been giving erroneous results.
“Was there record-level warmth on the inland ice on Friday?” it said. “No! A quality check has confirmed out suspicion that the measurement was too high.”
By combining measurements with observations from other weather stations, the DMI has now estimated that the temperature was closer to -2C.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/danish-climate-body-wrongly-reported-greenland-heat-record
More info for stu on the Greenland surface temperature fakery at the bakery.
Seems like the [pre adjusted] 1930s temps were warmer than current:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/screenhunter_4623sep-2612-14.jpg
More data – 400 ppm is to glacial minimum as glacial minimum is to glacial maximum.
http://archive.is/vS0r9
500 ppm cannot be far off.
Try living in the real world of science, blith.
Instead of the one belonging to the scientifically illiterate castropharians of ‘Extinction Rebellion’.
A dozen new papers attest to the substantially positive impact that CO2 fertilization and warming has had on the biosphere.
Due especially to the rise in CO2 concentrations, 52% of the globe’s vegetated lands have shown statistically significant greening/gross primary production trends since 1981, whereas just 12% of vegetated areas have been browning. CO2’s greening effect has been underestimated by 60% with outdated models:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/12/new-paper-co2-rise-warming-are-91-responsible-for-the-earths-accelerated-greening-trend-since-1990/
“More data – 400 ppm is to glacial minimum as glacial minimum is to glacial maximum.”
Can we have this translated into something even vaguely resembling coherent English?
Let’s get realistic, just for a moment. What would Greta Thunberg have done, had she not received this invitation to make a political point by travelling (free) across the Atlantic on an environmentally completely pointless, carbon fibre racing yacht? Swum? Paddled a coracle? She would have flown, because not to attend would have been unthinkable…and nobody would have noticed. She is actually just another celebrity on a private yacht. I also suspect that a yacht belonging to Monaco royalty probably has a motor.
Bryan, if it is a modern swing-keel yacht, not only does it have a motor but it has to be running the whole time it is are sailing.
To be fair about Andy Pitman’s statement, he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Overall OZ is a wetter place since the late 1940s and much wetter since 1970.
The BOM data clearly shows this to be the case and what’s more we know why some years receive more rainfall and some less. El nino years generally are drought years and la nina years generally have higher rainfall and floods.
Ditto for the IOD, where positive IODs produces less rainfall below the Broome to Wollongong line and negative IODs produce more rainfall and flooding.
So generally we do know what causes droughts and flooding rains over OZ, and it amazes me that very few people seem to understand this NATURAL part of our climate.
Neville
OZ is wetter, but not “much” wetter.
This is the result of increased water vapour in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation from global warming.
The heights after the 1970’s are a result of increased water vapour after 1940.
This is not necessarily only a natural part of our climate.
Chris
“This is the result of increased water vapour in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation from global warming.”
So you agree with Pitman that GW does not cause drought? Even if you claim he offered no evidence?
Are you going to tell Tim Flummery? And those state governments he frightened into building desalination plants that cannot operate without reliable power?
There are other factors as well such as moving precipitation from southern states and increasing rain in northern regions. Also land is warming itself which can generate excess evaporation at different localities. The excess water vapour in the air has come from the land as well as the sea.
So Tim Flannery and State governments are right to be concerned and they should be prepared for future problems with water supply.
Chris
They still need reliable power to run the desal plants.
In their present state of development solar, wind and batteries can’t do the job.
If you insist on making stupid, inconsistent, statements, then don’t be surprised if nothing at all that you say is taken seriously.
Freudian slip there. You are shouting at a mirror,
In which your face is plainly visible?
Boambee John does not know how mirrors work!
Like your thinking, I have a magical mirror.
It always shows stupidity. That’s why your face always appears.
I think it uses pixie dust, a key tool in the alarmists’ inventory.
Poor ol’ Boambee John, full of magic and pixie dust…
That explains things somewhat.
Chris
I have been insulted by experts.
Your pathetic efforts are typical of your general incompetence. I hope you are better at climate science, though your efforts here suggest not.
Have you thought of taking up macrame?
You certainly deserve to be insulted by experts.
Chris is reduced to “Nyah, nyah, nyah, your mother wears army boots.
Sad!
You are the one projecting that chant.
Neville, how lucky we are to have our blith to quantify the minor details for us.
Pity he doesn’t have a clue about that 1970s peak.
SD as usual his comment is absurd and anyway his good mate Flannery and the OZ C Council have told us that overall OZ will have worse droughts because of their CAGW. No mention of ENSO or IOD.
But this donkey also inferred a while back that co2 works like pixie dust and can create more rainfall over most of OZ and yet less rainfall over other parts of the country.
But severe lack of logic and reason is his trade mark, plus he doesn’t care about data and evidence. Just see their response when we point out that nearly all recent increases in co2 emissions have come from China , India and the non OECD. They just don’t understand simple facts and data.
Neville
“To be fair about Andy Pitman’s statement, he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Your comment is tautological. He is a climate scientist, ergo ….
An excellent article.
A couple of points. Today’s sea levels and overall conditions would not be considered optimal. Sea levels are constantly changing in a band of +16 metres to -140 metres with flat spots in between for extended periods. Rather when mega fauna and mastodons roamed the planet would be so called optimal.
Still life is what you make of it. Dealing with the current environment to produce for the world’s population is creating an optimal result in the conditions bestowed upon us.
This recent article in the South China Morning Post dated 11 August 2019 in the GWPF newsletter throws some interesting light on 500 year cycles in northern China. In the article the researchers are warning of global cooling.
“Their findings confirmed an earlier study by a separate team of Chinese scientists, published by online journal Scientific Reports in 2014, which first detected the 500-year cyclical pattern of China’s summer monsoons and linked it to solar activity. Wu said the latest study, with 10,000 years’ worth of new data, not only helped to draw a more complete picture of the 500-year cycle, but also revealed a previously unknown mechanism behind the phenomenon, which suggested the impact of the sun on the Earth’s climate may be greater than previously thought. –Stephen Chen”
“Chinese Scientists Warn Of Global Cooling, Impact Of Solar Activity”
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=e0604026e4&e=5188aac8bb
Here is the latest data for co2 levels at Mauna Loa Hawaii and this data shows that GLOBAL co2 levels have increased by 3 ppm over the last 12 months. OH and that’s about 3 times Australia’s TOTAL co2 emissions in 2019 and about 30 times NZ’s TOTAL emissions. BTW co levels in 1950 were about 311 ppm and about 328 ppm by 1970 and about 350 ppm by 1990.
And co2 levels were about 280 ppm in 1800.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Our resident donkey has told us that the extra warming in the NH could be caused by extra co2 emissions.
But the latest data shows that Mauna Loa levels are only 4.44 ppm higher than Cape Grim in Tasmania. Geeezzzz this fool really thinks this is a super potent trace gas.
Yet UAH shows ZERO warming in Antarctica for 40 years and about 0.1c/ decade for SH and 0.15 c/dec for the NH over the same period. And for decades we’ve had a warm phase AMO.
Nevile
When is the AMO due to shift?
BJ I don’t know,could be next week or in a year or two or 5 or 10 years. Some scientists have speculated that it has already started to shift to the cool phase. Time will tell, but Greenland seemed to lag the rest of the Arctic temp response after the present warm phase started.
Dr Curry thinks the next shift could start soon, but who knows? But I’d trust her opinion ahead of any of the alarmist crowd.
BJ here is an interesting study by 2 UK scientists in The Conversation in May 2015. They seem to think the shift had started but after another 4 years ( now 2019) I’m not sure they were correct.
But I keep hearing that nth Atlantic temps have been dropping for a while, so who knows? Time will tell.
http://theconversation.com/the-atlantic-is-entering-a-cool-phase-that-will-change-the-worlds-weather-42497
Pacific Islands are actually growing but are using CC to squeeze Australia for more money.
But that doesn’t stop our blithering ABC from putting in the boot and not asking the obvious questions.
Crazy climate politics of the Pacific with small island nations trying to blame their climate woes on Australia, while taking our aid and cosying up to China.
Whereas in reality China’s carbon dioxide emissions are growing each year by about our annual total, producing roughly 20 times our emissions this year, 21 times next year and so on. If Pacific island nations are worried about carbon emissions, then it is their Chinese suitors that deserve their ire.
The Prime Minister of Tuvalu appeared on ABC Radio National this morning and scoffed at Australia’s latest $500 million climate change package for Pacific Island nations.
Enele Sopoaga said it seemed like “an excuse not to stop coal mining not to reduce greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” — seemingly asking Australia to shut down our largest export industry. “It is just immoral,” Mr Sopoaga added, “it is almost like giving money to people to shut up, not to talk about their rights to survive, it is the right of the people of Tuvalu and small islands to survive.”
None of these facts about what is happening on Tuvalu, or what Australia is doing to reduce its greenhouse emissions, or how this contrasts with China’s massive emissions growth, or how even if Australia was shut down, global greenhouse emissions would continue to rise and therefore there would be no benefit to Tuvalu, none of these facts were put to Tuvalu’s Prime Minister by the ABC. Then Labor’s foreign policy spokeswoman Penny Wong called a press conference and supported the Pacific island nation attacks against Australia.
Why do the facts not matter? Whose side are these people on?
Chris Kenny in the Australian:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/abc-fails-to-ask-questions-on-climate-change-to-tuvalu-pm/news-story/96b3e158dfed36aa7cc616b65bac7a5b
There is an interesting article in Nature about the distortion in communication by contrarians versus scientists. The article speaks for itself.
This is the abstract:
“We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ?200,000 research publications and ?100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.”
Here is the link
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4
Stu
Poor petals. Let them cry in their (macrobiotic) beer.
Clearly you did not read the article. You guys depend on the comic book characters to promote your case. Contrarianism flourishes only in the light weight, flimsy, tabloid space.
“.. the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. “. The key word here is consumption, that is you.
The real players are getting on with the science while your guys tool around with fringe dwellers and “heavy weight media players” like Bolt, Jones and Hadley. Those guys don’t even need facts, their adoring fans just suck up the rubbish. Just look at your own posts. How often do you quote anyone other than a fringe player like Nova or Watts? Rarely any real science, just misquotes and cherry harvesting by these charlatans. So it goes on. And BTW where is this grand solar minimum and cooling planet you keep promising us?
The fact that the delusionaries need such articles from Time mag to boost their self esteem, really says it all.
It just shows how easily our blitherers here are led down this puerile pathway which turns a scientific discussion into a tribal war.
But when you can’t produce any evidence you have to resort to any weapon you can grab.
Time to grow up, stu!
Stu
Yes, I did read those words. The alarmists, who claim to be winning the battle of ideas, now admit that it is not actually going too well.
Hence my comment about tears in the beer.
You have been prominent in claiming victory, but post an item suggesting that the claim might be exaggerated. Maybe all is not well in alarmism?
As for grand solar minima, the only forecast I make about climate is that it has always changed, and will continue to do so.
When can I expect a tropical jungle outside my front door?
The jungle will be over your grave but there may be no one to notice.
Chris
I take it that your firm forecast is that NSW will look like the Kokoda Track within 30 years.
Gutsy call.
More lies from Boambee John.
More lies and slander from Chris Warren.
I (jocularly) asked Stu “When can I expect a tropical jungle outside my front door?”
Chris responded “The jungle will be over your grave but there may be no one to notice.”
I responded “I take it that your firm forecast is that NSW will look like the Kokoda Track within 30 years.”
Chris called this “More lies”.
Now watch Chris engage in bureaucratic double speak and obfuscation, to claim that the words he used did not mean what they mean.
Chris does not understand the difference between lies and sarcasm.
You lied,
I never made any such forecast.
Squirm as much as you like.
“Chris Warren
August 15, 2019 at 11:42 am
The jungle will be over your grave but there may be no one to notice.”
0Lease parse this statement out of existence.
Please parse …
You guys exhibit classic cognitive dissonance. You say you read the article, which is well researched, documented and explained, yet you choose to ignore the key finding. Proper science is well represented in main stream outlets, while denier rubbish is over represented given it is mostly false. It is in the out there rubbish press that the over representation of non science is greatest and the point is that solid science and scientists don’t actually want to play in that space. Real, publishing scientists just stick to normal channels.
BTW, did you see the analysis of the Exxon/Mobil discovery disclosure material. They show that over 80% of Exxon employed scientists, for thirty years, have found that burning oil has caused global warming. But of course the company suppressed the findings, until now under legal threat. The court cases continue.
When you stop and think about that 80% is much more significant then the 97% that you continue to challenge despite multiple papers reaching the same conclusion. Oh well cog diss eh.
Your methods and arguments continue to be classic grafts from the tobacco smoke play book and bear a striking resemblance to the repetitive drivel flowing from Trumps mouth. Political scientists will have a field day soon analysing the denier movements rituals and Trump. Meantime you need to come up with something new, your attack points are stale and dated.
Stu
You acknowledge that you are not scientifically knowledgeable, yet state with absolute confidence that “denier rubbish is over represented given it is mostly false.” Dare to consider the possibility that no one in this debate has absolute knowledge. Those who claim to have such are bluffing, and you have fallen for it.
Your comment that “the point is that solid science and scientists don’t actually want to play in that space. Real, publishing scientists just stick to normal channels” shows a level of delusion that shocks even me. The number of “climate scientists” who are media tarts is quite high. Still, if you say that Mann, Hansen, Karoly et al are not “solid scientists”, far be it for me to disagree!
And speaking of cognitive dissonance, remember that you have loudly proclaimed that the “science” does not matter because the public is fully on side. Perhaps not?
Stu
PS, thanks for the free psychological assessment. Are you qualified to make it without a personal interview? Is it ethical to do so?
“You guys exhibit classic cognitive dissonance.”
Here’s some more climate porn for the religious fanatics to feast on. This BBC DA special features all the extremists they could hope for , but it has one huge problem, it doesn’t tell the viewers where the increase in extra co2 emissions have come from since 1990.
No mention is made of the DEVELOPING countries and the soaring emissions from those countries plus the soaring emissions to come in the decades ahead.
They also neglect to tell us that the OECD countries have reduced their co2 emissions to 1990 levels, So we know this is just more propaganda against the wealthy countries and not about mitigating their so called CAGW.
Also the RS and NAS report is clear that there will be no change in co2 levels or temp for a thousand years or longer and this wasn’t mentioned either. Even if we cease all human co2 emissions today.
Here are the 2 links.
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/climate-change-the-facts
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
BJ, “the only forecast I make about climate is that it has always changed, and will continue to do so“. As I told my crazy sister-in-law, that is the lamest of statements to make about this subject, and which actually displays a real lack of knowledge and sense. She no longer says it, and relies on slightly stronger arguments, though still lame.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has undergone many astronomical (including orbital), and tectonic changes that have caused the climate to change. Scientists know and understand all that and they know none of those things is causing change now. They do know that pumping CO2 into the air is having an impact.
I am surprised you have not used her other lame excuse of not knowing next weeks weather therefore being unable to predict it thirty years out. As you would know, one is weather, the other is climate.
Did you see god at work again this week? The great believer in miracles, Scomo, has watered down the communique from Tuvalu. Nice work, not.
Stu
Your “crazy” sister in law is a smart woman. Do you think it possible that after her opinions were treated with contempt by you, she might have made the entirely sensible decision that there is no point debating with a closed mind?
You actually believe that scientists have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the past 4.5 billion years that they can state absolutely that none of the “many astronomical (including orbital), and tectonic changes that have caused the climate to change” is causing change now”. Only “pumping CO2 into the air is having an impact” now. Did they find another of those magical pine trees to tell them that?
As for predictions 30 years out, any fool can make such a prediction, be it about weather, climate, economics or international politics. The trick is in getting the prediction right. I have yet to see any evidence, let alone convincing evidence, that this is possible. Go back 30 years and check some of the predictions made by climate scientists. Tell us (honestly) how many were right, how many were wrong.
Once you do that, I have a bridge to sell you.
The all-wise stu blithers:
“The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has undergone many astronomical (including orbital), and tectonic changes that have caused the climate to change. Scientists know and understand all that and they know none of those things is causing change now. They do know that pumping CO2 into the air is having an impact.”
But they still can’t quantify the reason any change that has occurred, nominate the specific physics involved or the degree to which it is responsible so therefore can’t provide any directly related, measureable evidence to support this “knowledge”.
All they know is what they think they know and as their GIGO GCMs keep confirming, like you, they don’t have a clue.
And even stu’s conviction that “consensus” is the evidence [LOL], he hasn’t even got that right:
“Labor failed to win any seats north of Queensland’s southeast corner at the federal election. This
highlighted the divide between those in the fairyland inner suburbs of Australia’s cities and those
of us who live in reality-land, where much of the country’s income is generated from mining and
agriculture.”
“But they still can’t quantify the reason any change that has occurred, nominate the specific physics involved or the degree to which it is responsible so therefore can’t provide any directly related, measureable evidence to support this “knowledge”.
You have to be kidding. That is such a ridiculous comment it requires no other response than a long laugh. Get real.
Your cult has a wonderful time with such rubbish. I remind you again religion is based on faith which is what you use when you have no facts. It is you with the religion no matter how you try to spin the reverse.
“…..it requires no other response than a long laugh.”
Well stuey-luv, why not surprise us all, then, with your factual, empirical evidence?
You know, the stuff we have been asking you continuously for, for years to support your climate crisis claims?
That stuff you are yet to provide but now fallaciously claim you already have?
We’re still waiting to see it.
So how about you just stop with your dissimulation and produce your evidence?
Or admit you are a liar and have never had it.
No matter how beautiful yr theory , or who says it, or how many believe it… if it don’t conform to observation,
it’s wro-o-ong. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/christy_dec8.jpg
Absolutely beth, but isn’t it amazing how that fundamental principle doesn’t apply to “climate scientists”?
Models have stupendous accuracy. They conform with observations.
http://archive.is/samEn
No evidence, simply assertion, as usual.
Even the IPCC, in one of its reports (AR4 ??) found that some 111 of 114 (??) models forecast temperatures that were higher than actually recorded.
Models can be fudged to match what has actually happened, they cannot (by any rational person) be claimed to “have stupendous accuracy” in projecting the future. The future is unknowable until it has happened.
Rational people know this, climate alarmists are not rational.
What a stupid comment.
What does http://archive.is/samEn mean to you?
How is http://archive.is/samEn “assertion”?
Another alarmist link?
Empirical data, true facts, science and hard evidence.
Enough to make the heads of denialists explode in rage.
Chris
Is that why you rregularly”explode in rage” when you are challenged? You are a denialist?
Stu
“I remind you again religion is based on faith which is what you use when you have no facts. It is you with the religion no matter how you try to spin the reverse.”
Pot, meet kettle.
You claim to have the killer evidence, but despite regularly posting what might tactfully be described as anecdotal “evidence”, on this occasion, you have nothing but (forced) laughter to offer.
Denialists often claim that todays changes are natural and often occurred in the past.
This is a lie.
There was only ever 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere over 2 million years ago. Long before our species emerged.
So we are experiencing a “one in two million year event” and denialists refuse to look at the data or science.
But if present trends continue, future generations, possibly those now in creche, will have to deal with a “one in 50 million year event” and still denialists will lie about it being natural.
All denialists should wash their eyes with this: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4
Denialists be damned.
Nobody is claiming that current CO2 levels “are natural and often occurred in the past”, blith.
You are just making that up.
But you might tell us, if you can, just exactly what is happening that is different today, with current CO2 levels over 400 ppm that has not happened in the past 80 centuries of the Holocene with CO2 levels below 300 ppm?
“if present trends continue”
The models will show them continuing, it is one of the basic assumptions.
GIGO.
Good article in the Australian showing how these “scientists” and social progressives operate:
Reef science may be beyond the latte crowd.
By PETER RIDD
Labor failed to win any seats north of Queensland’s southeast corner at the federal election. This
highlighted the divide between those in the fairyland inner suburbs of Australia’s cities and those
of us who live in reality-land, where much of the country’s income is generated from mining and
agriculture.
The backtracking by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk on the Adani coalmine
indicates Labor realises it is in serious trouble with the forthcoming state elections. But it is facing
another Adani-like debacle with its Great Barrier Reef protection legislation that will go before
parliament this month.
This legislation will drastically affect sugar cane, cattle and every major agricultural industry
along the Queensland coast. Fertiliser and pesticide application will be restricted, massive fines
will be applied for transgressions and a huge bureaucratic burden will be imposed on farmers.
For them it will be like having a government official continuously sitting in the tractor next to
them.
It will strangle the sugar industry that is already struggling – the Mossman sugar mill north of
Cairns is facing collapse and recently needed tens of millions of dollars of government cash to
continue. When the mill collapses, the farms go with it.
The motivation of the new reef legislation is laudable: to save the reef. But, as with Adani, much
of the science behind this legislation is poorly quality assured and unreliable. In north
Queensland we could never understand why the Adani mine was targeted as a reef killer when it
is no different from the thousands of coalmines around the world.
The carbon dioxide produced by burning coal goes around the world irrespective of where it is
mined or where it is burned. Opposition to Adani, to us regionals, Iooked like a way for a city
dweller to feel good by pretending to do something about the reef.
Some of the “science” on which the new reef legislation is based looks very dubious.
For example, mud from farms is supposed to be killing the reef yet data shows that there is
almost no mud whatsoever on the outer reef where 99 per cent of the corals live. It is all pristine
white coral sand.
Pesticides from farms are generally not detectable on the outer reef even with the most sensitive
scientific equipment.
To get over the inconvenient problem that the main reef, which is often more than 100km from
shore, is obviously totally unaffected by farming, scientists focus on the “inner reef”. These are
the tiny fringing reefs close to land that have less than I per cent of the coral. Unlike the offshore
reefs, they are occasionally affected by river water in floods. But even here, work by
sedimentologists across 25 years finds that mud from farms represents an exposure about 100
times less than from natural mechanisms. The natural mechanism is resuspension of mud by
waves stirring the seabed, especially in strong southeasterly winds and cyclones.
A similar argument applies for the nutrient pollution by farm fertiliser. About 100 times more
nutrients cycle through the system naturally. And pesticides are at worst in extremely low
concentrations on these near-shore reefs. The water quality of the reef is actually excellent and
determined by the vast quantities of sparkling pure water that flows into and out of the reef from
the Pacific Ocean.
Because the “science” has not been checked, tested or replicated properly, it is hard to tell what is
solid and what is not. We may well be focusing on the wrong issues that face the reef and wasting
resources to protect it while damaging every major industry in the north.
Many of us outside the inner suburbs know that much of what we hear about the reef may not
be true – just like Adani. The viability of many small towns along the coast is in jeopardy. We
need far mole rigorous checking of the science before we implement new legislation that will
add huge costs to some of our major industries for probably little or no environmental benefit.
This is not denial; it is common sense.
We need a team of genuinely independent scientists to audit the science. There are many
excellent scientists who can do this audit and who are outside the scientific “bubble” that is
responsible for advising the government.
Let’s hold off for the moment on new rules that will strangle industry.
It also may stop the state government from making another Adani-sized mistake.
Peter Ridd is an independent scientist who was unlawfully dismissed from lames Cook University in
TownsviIIe.
little Greta virtue-signals with hypocritical back-up:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EB8T5LjWwAADPuh.png:large
Don, how does it feel not making it into the top 386 of climate contrarians?
Jo Nova and Jennifer Marohasy made it.
See Judith Curry’s blog or the list from the Nature paper at http://climatlas.com/tropical/media_cloud_list.txt
“You claim to have the killer evidence, but despite regularly posting what might tactfully be described as anecdotal “evidence”, on this occasion, you have nothing but (forced) laughter to offer.
Rubbish, I wont bother to quote it here but have a look at the entirety of scientific research on the subject. Go and have a look beyond Jo and Wattsie, moron.
Chris and I are working from the side of established science. The pressure is on you turkeys to counteract that evidence, and so far you have continued to fail dismally.
And so the blind, brain washed, bed-wetting, blithering, bull artists take another leap of faith into the future.
Not only are their assumption based GCMs’ prediction errors in their “settled science” very visible for all to see but they now claim their [non-existent] facts and evidence are likewise.
They tend to make internet scammers look reputable.
Stu, your next lot of evidence will be your first.
Just give us your summary of this cryptic jewel instead of spouting your “entirety of scientific research”.
Stu
You and Chris are on the side of “established science”.
I guess that means that in earlier eras you would have believed that the sun and planets orbited around the earth, and accepted the Phlogiston Theory?
More blatant lies.
More blatant slander.
Still, it is a bit harsh to refer to Stu’s comment about “established science” as “blatant lies”!
Just desserts.
Cry-baby.
I love just desserts.
Pavlova is particularly good!
Good, you have just been smacked in the face with a mighty pavlova.
A true denialist, resorting to (rhetorical) violence. Are you really serious, or just an NPC bot?
Stu
“I wont bother to quote it here but have a look at the entirety of scientific research on the subject.”
You have read “the entirety of scientific research on the subject.” Very impressive. What did you do after breakfast?
It is a waste of time going back and forth on this. To back up your and your ilks flimsy claims you say “science is not decided by consensus”. Think about that. It is a tacit admission on your part that there is a great body of science out there, a consensus, about the existence, causes and effects of AGW.
So if you want evidence, once again I say go to ANY of the worlds met offices, scientific institutes etc and you will find it. On the other side when I wish to check on the counter claims the only stuff to find is in bodgy websites run by amateurs or discredited scientists.
As for the GCM’S, if you look you will find they are not the evidence but the predictors of where things will take us. Part of their proof point is that they have been fairly accurate and also align with past actual events.
Stop wasting everyone’s time with your claim of no evidence. The onus is on you to refute the evidence for AGW.
I am off to golf, where even the kangaroos make more sense than you. Cheers.
“So if you want evidence, once again I say go to ANY of the worlds met offices, scientific institutes etc and you will find it.”
We’ve been doing that for years, stu, and the best we can get is the fabrication, cheating and manipulation we have presented you with many times.
“The onus is on you to refute the evidence for AGW.”
You really regard that fakery as “evidence” simply because it is “consensus” hey?
If you had told us years ago that this is all you have, we could have been laughing all this time.
But it all starts to make sense now.
Now that you finally admit that GIGO is all you’ve got then it’s quite understandable that you must recruit a mentally retarded, brain-washed little girl to make your case.
Stu
“As for the GCM’S, if you look you will find they are not the evidence but the predictors of where things will take us.”
Chris (see above) begs to differ with you.
“Stu-penduous accuracy”!
PS, haven’t we been told that golf courses are bad for the climate and the environment? Vandal!
Stu
“Go back 30 years and check some of the predictions made by climate scientists. Tell us (honestly) how many were right, how many were wrong.”
How did you go with this research? Did you find the 50 million climate refugees who were predicted to appear by 2010? How is the temperature going against the projection of a conservative 3 to 7 degrees by 2020?
I can still accept your offers on that bridge.
Some facts for our blith:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0713_Fig3.jpg
“How did you go with this research? Did you find the 50 million climate refugees who were predicted to appear by 2010? How is the temperature going against the projection of a conservative 3 to 7 degrees by 2020?“
Bullshit claims on your part. Presumably cherry picked from unreliable sources. Not the predictions of credible players. Try again.
Stu
Great get out of jail card, “Not the predictions of credible players. Try again.”
Still, I must agree with you on this occasion. The prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 was made in 2005 by the United Nations Environment Program. Clearly not “credible players.
Can’t recall off hand who made the other prediction, but it was an alarmist source. Perhaps you should check before you make knee jerk reactions?
If this is your usual level of research and knowledge, then your “crazy” sister in law made a very wise decision in not engaging in climate debate with you.
Beyond pathetic!
Why China, which is not concerned about their emissions, still talks like alarmists here:
A new study has found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000BC – regardless of human activity
https://mailchi.mp/cc738f49f986/chinese-scientists-warn-of-global-cooling-impact-of-solar-activity?e=6bd6cdb589
Wow! What a fascinating place.
So many opinions and so little science.
Stu,
just forgetting predictions for a minute, can you tell us from your scientific sources if any part of this less-than-1c-warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is due to natural climate variability?:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1820/to:2019/trend
Hi Spangled Drongo,
Careful Mate, you’re introducing scientific “facts” which can be terribly confusing for the brainwashed warmistas.
Just in passing, you will find you get the most reliable overall results using the HADCRUT 3 unadjusted global mean data.
That is, you will get the same trend as you have with HADCRUT 4, but I have found the the HADCRUT 3 unadjusted global record is the least tampered with overall.
Of course, a lot depends on whether my comments ever see the light of day after moderation.
Do denialists understand this?
“Last year was the fourth warmest year on record despite La Niña conditions early in the year and the lack of a short-term warming El Niño influence until late in the year. ”
See https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/reporting-state-climate-2018?fbclid=IwAR3jXabARYP2xJnDFD7KPZjdCRNOlvWo-77qovAmq93fRNu33HC07FO5xNk
Denialists cannot explain northern hemisphere record temperatures in the absence of Milankovitch causes and El Nino causes. Scientists can.
Stop your nonsense you silly fool, what about the AMO?
Chris
Are you referring to the record cold temperatures experienced in the US and Canada this northern summer?
Stu
Have you worked out yet whether the United Nations Environment Program are “unreliable sources” or “credible players”?
There was no global record cold.
There was global record heat for non-Nino years.
This does not exclue the possibility that there may be a few locations that had record cold but it would be cherry picking to base any global view on these.
.
Chris
“There was global record heat for non-Nino years.”
Particularly those ending in an odd number?
If you make your categories fine enough, you should be able to “prove” your point.
PS
Didn’t you lecture me a couple of threads ago on the essentiality of including all data in calculating a “global average temperature”?
Now you say that “there may be a few locations that had record cold but it would be cherry picking to base any global view on these”.
Bit of cherry picking going on here?
BTW the York Uni tool shows HAD 4 krig at 0.56 c/century from 1850 to 2019 or 0.94 c increase in the last 169 years.
OH and don’t forget this is a recovery from the LIA or from the coldest period for the last 10,000 years.
This could be entirely natural and still not be alarming at all.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Neville
Is the “York Uni tool” one of the climate alarmists?
Yes BJ, York Uni and Cowton are from the alarmist camp. But their software generates the graphs plus the trends from the data that is supplied by the various teams who create the different data-sets.
Even today after the con artist’s adjustments of HAD 4’s 2 earlier warming trends DOWN and adjustment UP for the 2 later trends,they don’t seem all that alarming.
Don’t forget HAD 4 is the IPCC’s preferred temp data-set.
In 2010 these trends were not statistically significantly different according to Phil Jones. What a con and fra-d.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2009/trend
Absolute, shocking, inveterate cherry picking.
Makes no sense whatsever.
Doesn’t produce the result you want?
Cherry picking never does.
Science wants truth.
Defined as?
More data denialists never mention.
When CO2 accumulation hits 420ppm the variation since 1950 will be greater than the variation during any ice age.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_040518.gif
All ice will melt while ever CO2 is over 300 ppm.
Chris
“All ice will melt while ever CO2 is over 300 ppm.”
How long will the process take?
Do you really believe the crap you post, or you just a contrarian troll? I am starting to think the latter. You make silly statements all the time, while Stu automatically rejects anything that doesn’t match the narrative, yesterday finding himself in the position of denying the UN Environment Program the status of a “credible source”.
What a hopeless pair you are. Good only for comedy valye and a bit of amusing chain pulling.
I wonder is the erudite, highly educated (or at least credentialled) Chris familiar enough with the accent of the US Deep South to have picked the pun:
“Would you lark some arse in your drink, Saarh?”
Probably not!
But how long will it take for all of the arse to melt?
You’ve gone very quiet, stu, since I asked this question:
Can you tell us from your scientific sources if any part of this less-than-1c-warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is due to natural climate variability?
You too can feel free to answer, blith.
Let’s test the donkey’s claim that co2 levels above 300 ppm are a problem? From 1933 to 1979 there was a drop in temp trend and co2 level in 1933 was 308.9 ppm and 1979 was 337 ppm.
Here is HAD 4 global trend from 1933 to 1979 using WFTs. See light blue trend compared to warming trends and note the trend line is DOWN. Remember this is a period of 46 years and the YORK tool also shows a negative trend over that period for HAD 4 global.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1933/to:1979/trend
Let’s test the arse’s claim that co2 levels above 300 ppm are not a problem?
Let the arse divert attention to 1933 to 1979 and let serious people look at the full, non-cherry picked data, from the same source.
Note how the arse deliberately deleted data – just blank space!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2009/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1933/to:1979
Why – to falsely imply that heat with CO2 over 300ppm is no different to heat under 300ppm.
This is falsification at a high level.
Here is the deleted data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend
This has a trend the EXACT OPPOSITE to the falsification.
Notice that the warming trends below 300ppm are shared with cooling trends, and are at lower temperature levels than similar trends after 300ppm when there is no equivalent cooling intervals.
Another trick by denialists exposed.
Soeaking of arses, how long to melt all the ice?
Noting that (in a phrase you love) some scientists say that it will take 1000 years to remove all the extra CO2 to get below 300 ppm.
Poor, silly blith is in complete denial of the fact that the cooling in his data from 1880 to 1910, is less than the original cooling from 1933 to 1975.
Any fool can adjust away the truth, blith:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif
So climate was behaving exactly the same regardless of atmo CO2 but you think it’s OK to suppress these facts.
Speaks volumes about the corrupt, groupthink, data-fiddling gate-keepers [and their true believing fans] hey, blith?
Oh lookee, Chris has found a graph.
Now, if Chris were to plot the trend lines in the various periods, there might emerge a pattern of increasing temperatures followed by decreasing, followed by increasing and so on.
More like a jagged sawtooth than the continuous linear increase that Chris has claimed on other occasions (but those occasions have probably now been consigned to the memory hole, a la 1984).
Not so long ago, Chrise was adamant that such a graph did not exist.
Here I’ve also added the PDO index graph from 1900 using WFTs and it certainly flattens out the appearance of the 4 warming trends over the last century
So what about this PDO index + AMO + a 1 to 2% variation in cloud cover etc? Perhaps more food for thought?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1933/to:1979/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to
And even then that HAD 4 trend is highly adjusted.
They don’t call it the “Adjustocene” for nothing:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif
And Neville, the correlation of the data tampering with atmospheric CO2 is almost perfect. Look how the data is being altered to match CO2 theory:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-13-at-8.20.52-AM.gif
Ah, the things our gatekeepers can do when they are in charge of their own “evidence”.
I think Stu has gone into hiding from vigilantes of the UN Association seeking vengeance after he stated that the UN Environment Program is not a credible source on climate matters.
Relax Stu, you are not alone. I agree with you that the UNEP is not a credible source.
Geeezzz I supposedly deliberately left a big gap in the data and hoped no one would notice?
We all knew about the 1880 to 1910 cooling, so I presume the resident donkey has just discovered it?
But whether he likes it or not that longer, later cool trend of 46 years still stands and the co2 levels were higher as well.
But please tell us how to reduce co2 emissions when nearly all the emissions have come from China and the developing countries after 1990?
Unfortunately Neville is just putting up stuff he does not understand.
If you add-in the normal 11year sunspot cycle it is clear that it may appear that falling PDO may result in a deceleration of HADCRUT4 during the 1950’s, this is disproven by the fact that falling PDO had no effect around 2000. In other words correlation at one time was not causation.
From 1910 a rising HADCRUT4 lead a rise in PDO. From 1970 a rising PDO lead a rising HADCRUT4 – the complete opposite.
Also PDO peaks are little changed and it looks like PDO troughs are more random.
lead => leads
The so called scientists versus contrarians study is full of bogus claims and misinformation.
Willis has checked out their links and they’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. Even Mosher agrees and has shown readers how to make a complaint.
They’ve started to delete some of the clueless links and bogus claims but Willis has saved them for future reference.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/
Funny world eh. Three guys here dig up rubbish and carry on as though they are the final arbiters on all things climate change, while the real world rolls along totally ignoring them. Meantime others like Chris, quote actual science and general consensus, without effect because of the classic cognitive dissonance of the other three. On the same plane as the Donald. Last count he is up to 12,000 lies and distortions. Nev and coy are catching up fast though.
It is such a joke. You three really are having yourselves on.
Stu
Decided yet if the UN Environment Program is a reliable source yet?
I asked you a serious question about failed alarmist predictions, and offered two examples. I had mentioned both, with their sources, a few days ago. If you had read what I said then, you might have avoided making a fool of yourself (again).
Does the thought ever enter your head that you are a screaming example of why sceptics continue to doubt?
“while the real world rolls along totally ignoring them”
Yet only a day or so ago, you were lamenting that the sceptics were getting ever more publicity (putting aside for the moment the many stupidities in the Nature article). Now you proclaim that the “real world” is ignoring sceptics. Which is it?
Your perpetual obesiance to “consensus” demonstrates that you have not grasped even the simplest aspects of the scientific method.
PS, going by what he posts, you and Chris seem to have failed to convince Don. I suspect that he is both smarter than any of us, and more broadly educated. Think about that before you post your drivel.
And our stu not only dodges and weaves on specifics like answering questions and producing any evidence [heaven forbid, hey, stu?] but then waffles and hand-waves with great hubris about his and blith’s groupthink and consensus religion, pointing out to us sceptics just how virtuous he really is by counting all Trump’s “lies”.
Wow!!!
Where would we be without informed comments like this?
Stuey-luv, you know as much about the real Trump as you know about climate change:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/can-donald-trump-really-tame-the-dragon/news-story/781d5ea403ee756fe3a23634da779870
SD
I don’t think tbat Stu is here for the hunting!
True, BJ.
He’s here for the Doomsday.
But when those other catastrophes never arrived, such as Y2K, the new Ice Age, acid rain, mass human starvation, overpopulation, peak oil, and the Silent Spring, he’s getting desperate.
Here are just some of the predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970. These so called scientists couldn’t have been more wrong and some of these morons carry on to the present day.
Here’s the link and some of their bizarre predictions. Do they remind you of anyone?
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded tomorrow with media hype, and claims like this from the official Earth Day website:
Scientists warn us that climate change could accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival and everything we love. We call on you to keep global temperature rise under the unacceptably dangerous level of 2 degrees C, by phasing out carbon pollution to zero. To achieve this, you must urgently forge realistic global, national and local agreements, to rapidly shift our societies and economies to 100% clean energy by 2050. Do this fairly, with support to the most vulnerable among us. Our world is worth saving and now is our moment to act. But to change everything, we need everyone. Join us.
Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the “environmental grievance hustlers.”
Earth Day
In 1970 the poorest of the world’s 3.7 bn people were much worse off than they are today. Here’s the latest data comparing 1970 against more recent data.
In 1970 the Pop of Africa was 366.5 Mil and today is over 1300 mil. And they are much better off today, here are some of the trends.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/
Trends among the world’s poorest countries
Since 1970, there has been encouraging news emerging from developing countries. According to the UN’s 2011 Human Development Report, life expectancy in developing countries had increased from 59 years in 1970 to 70 years in 2010. School enrollment climbed from 55% to 70% of all primary and secondary school-age children. Also, in the last forty years, per capita GDP doubled to more than ten thousand U.S. dollars.
The World’s average Human Development Index (HDI), which combines information on life expectancy, schooling and income, has increased 19% since 1990 (and 41% since 1970). This reflects large improvements in life expectancy, school enrollment, literacy, and income. Almost every country has benefited from this progress. Only three countries had a lower HDI in 2010 than in 1970. Those three countries were Zimbabwe, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Poor countries are catching up with the wealthier countries, but not all countries made fast progress. For example, the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have progressed slowly, largely due to the HIV epidemic. Countries in the former Soviet Union have been held back by an increase in adult mortality.
To illustrate the income inequality between rich and poor countries, consider these facts: about 1.75 billion people live in multi-dimensional poverty, meaning extreme deprivation in education, health, and standard of living; 1.44 billion people out of the developing world’s 6.9 billion people live on $1.25 per day; 2.6 billion people are estimated to be living on less than $2 a day. Multidimensional poverty varies by region from three percent in Europe and Central Asia to 65% in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: Human Development Reports
Information Please® Database, © 2013 Pearson
Measuring Global Poverty
Economic Statistics
Per Capita Foreign Aid Assistance by World’s Wealthiest Countries, 2002
Thanks for those details, Neville.
When will they ever learn. When will they ever learn?
Another aspect of the blith’n’stu syndrome is the fact that the rational alternative is not in the new Left DNA. They are the force of protest over debate, seeming over doing, fake over fact and Conspiracy over Democracy.
As Nigel Farage said recently about the concept of “loser’s consent” that political scholars have examined in detail. Without loser’s consent, how does democracy function? The willingness to accept defeat, rather than resort to protests or firearms, is what underpins our democratic success.
Since you raised Y2K, the reason there was no crisis was the work that went in to fix the problem before hand. Having written some of the programs, that had the problem due to the limits of 70’s technology, I know how things could have failed with simple 2 digit year fields.
It was a real problem averted, but one that contrarians live to pick on because “nothing happened”.
Similar with the CFC’s and the ozone. A global decision reduced the problem. Will eventually be the same with carbon..
Once again to you panic merchants. Things will not change suddenly but we have to start down the road. Of course we will still have coal mines and power stations in 2030, but the new, add on stuff can be new energy systems, at least reducing the acceleration if not even slowing the speed.
Well you’ve condemned us AGAIN, now explain how China, India and the developing world figures into your coming apocalypse? Funny thing is they will be increasing their co2 emission for a long time to come.
“It was a real problem averted, but one that contrarians live to pick on because “nothing happened”.’
You mean to tell us, stu, that by applying a little common sense and due diligence that nothing actually happened?
Well ain’t that amazing?
Isn’t that exactly what we have been trying to tell you about the climate problem – or non-problem as the case may be?
With Y2K, people actually believed that the world was coming to an end. Hundreds of stories were produced in the years leading up to January 1, 2000, talking about how suddenly everything that was computerized would come to a crashing halt.
Trains, planes, the lot.
But guess what?
Jan 1, 2000 came and went without a glitch.
I would have thought that after your real world experiences with Y2K you would be a little more rational about the rest of your end-of-the-world scenarios.
Another example of the clueless left wing morons who always knock Australia, yet praise China and NZ for their so called work towards mitigation of their so called CAGW. Just more BS and fra-d.
The NZ PM is a first class donkey, but deputy PM Winston Peters is much better informed and is well aware of China’s true ambitions in the Pacific and around the world.
Here Peta Credlin and her guests tell the real story of Aussie’s aid and support over many decades around the Pacific and beyond. We have much to be proud of, but get little thanks in return.
SD and Neville
It is disaster porn.
Misanthropes who see humanity as not worthy of Gaia imagine scenarios in which world population is reduced drastically. They and those close to them will, of course, survive, and lead the survivors into a new utopia.
Some, like the wackademic whose paper Chris linked to on an earlier thread, envision universities surviving as bastions of civilisation like the monasteries of the Dark Age. Modern universities lack the defensive understandings that helped the monasteries continue.
That paper had a priceless reference to the need to be able to make aspirin as an urgent issue. The old Army diagnosis: PUO, take two aspirin, two days light duty.
They have no idea what a collapse of civilisation willcontinue. Banditry and rule of the strong, well armed and ruthless! The lovers of disaster porn do not generally fit into those categories.
I don’t mind them having survivalist fantasies, but I see no reason to destroy the world so a few misanthropes can hope to live out their fantasies.
will entail, annoying predictive text!
“With Y2K, people actually believed that the world was coming to an end. Hundreds of stories were produced in the years leading up to January 1, 2000, talking about how suddenly everything that was computerized would come to a crashing halt.”
Same people that believe some stupid old book predicts the rapture every couple of years. Plenty of suckers in the world. Can I sell you a trip to Jonestown?
Typical press and morons to suck it up, just like a well funded climate denial conspiracy.
“With Y2K, people actually believed that the world was coming to an end. Hundreds of stories were produced in the years leading up to January 1, 2000, talking about how suddenly everything that was computerized would come to a crashing halt.”
And who do you think spread such rumours?
Not you alarmist, doomist, religionist, groupthinkers, hey stu?
You conveniently forget whose side you’re on when it finally dawns on you just how silly you really are:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/08/might-want-to-stick-with-palmolive/
Stu
And how much did the scaremongers in the IT industry benefit from Y2K?
Lots of dollars, but most of it was worth the price.
Stu
O
I’m sure the renewabauble companies feel exactly the same way.
Just ask Turnbull pater et fils. Renewabaubles have been very good to them. The proles, not so much.
What would we do without these true believers:
A virtue-signalling New Zealand is going to send its farmers broke by addressing sheep and cow farts to impress the world.
# Generation of methane by trees and from the breakdown of cellulose by microbes and a wide range of animal life is pervasive across all vegetated land. Such natural generation of methane is similar to what is being attributed to livestock. Plant material not eaten by livestock is only consumed by something else or decomposed by microbial activity with similar amounts of methane being produced.
The whole idea of tearing the heart out of a nation’s economy to reduce methane emissions from livestock is an unbelievable display of scientific, technological and economic ignorance:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/08/kiwi-climatology-land-of-the-long-white-clods/
Are you sitting down? I agree with you on this one. Not sure of the ratio, but cows and sheep also consume a lot of carbon. So think of their output as being part of the current carbon cycle, not a problem really. Net result, NZ are doing ok already.
As for our man in Tuvalu, I think he screwed up. Surely he could have been more considerate of their unanimous (apart from him) opinion on the need to make a strong statement. He could have talked them down from “no new mines” to something more mellow and meaningless in the short term. Why do that? To retain the influence we have (had maybe now) with the island nations and kept China at bay. Now they will be more susceptible to Chinese aid and influence. Not good diplomacy, almost from the Trump playbook.
I saw Chinese aid at work in Fiji earlier this year in the form of school buses. Innocuous enough and quite useful, but the beginning of heavier influence such as major infrastructure.
Not sure if Don’s Pol Sci extends to diplomacy but would be interested in his opinion on the Tuvalu episode.
Yes, and like humans they also sequester a lot. But I thought the average Kiwi was smart enough not to buy crap like that.
So you think that ScoMo should be a hypocrite just to please a bunch of self-serving SSI politicians that are already collecting over a billion a year from us?
Good on him for being honest and forthright. Very rare in that group.
We provide more money to them than the rest of the world combined and they come the raw prawn on climate change when all they have to do is check their own shorelines to know what’s really happening.
Do you think he is not smart to let them know privately that he is aware of the facts?
And advise them that if that’s how they want to play then maybe there won’t be quite so much tossed into the kitty?
The fact that they don’t acknowledge China is “sinking” them 20 times faster than we are, and paying them a lot less for the pleasure, shows what hypocrites they are to say that about us and still take the money.
Isn’t it amazing how people require “statements” and ignore facts?
And after getting their bums well and truly kicked in the fed election guess who are having 2 bob each way like true waffling hypocrites?:
Senator Wong this morning said Scott Morrison “damaged our relationships” at the Pacific Island Forum by watering down calls for action on climate change in a joint statement from the 18 leaders.
But the opposition Senate leader acknowledged a Labor government also would have sought to water the leaders’ statement down.
Good ol’ Penny. She sounds like stu. Always happy to throw us under a bus. But keep it up. At least it will keep you and Albo away from the cheque book.
SD, you clearly have no concept of diplomacy. You would fit in very well in the Trump administration. Bull in china shop seems to strike a chord.
Oh, and here is a fairly concise presentation on the causes of global warming, it is worth a look, unless you are a loony denier. It is from that “lefty” organisation Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
That’s as pathetic as all your arguments, stu. They mention everything except the bleedin’ obvious.
During the last 80 centuries with low CO2 the world warmed at least 4c higher than currently. Higher sea levels. Higher latitude tree lines etc.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of PR papers to support this from measureable evidence, not models.
It was caused mostly by something called natural climate variability [Nat Var] which works as a result of the unquantifiable forcings and feedbacks of the climate system as admitted by all climate scientists and following on from the coldest, prolonged period in the history of civilisation, Nat Var is only ever going to go one way.
We are still in the lowest quartile of Nat Var for the Holocene.
Do you, as your link does, seriously deny the existence of Nat Var?
Please give me a yes or no.
And then how about answering my other question;
What is happening today with current CO2 levels that hasn’t happened during those 80 centuries of much lower CO2 levels?
Terry McCrann in the Aus tells it like it should be with renewables:
There is one very simple but absolutely fundamental obligation that should be required from anyone wanting to supply power into the eastern states electricity grid.
The obligation is this: if you wish to sell power into the grid, the NEM or National Energy Market, you will have to guarantee a minimum level of supply and guarantee that minimum level of supply 24/7.
And critically, that minimum level can be no lower than 80 per cent of the maximum amount of energy you will be permitted to sell into the grid.
This will instantly eliminate the parasitic way that especially wind is allowed to freeload on the grid.
You want to sell 1000MW into the grid, you will have to guarantee you will supply at least 800MW all the time. That’s to say, 24/7 through the year.
It would expose the essential and incurable uselessness of so-called renewables: the very reason we stopped using them, progressively from the Stone Age on and then totally in developed nations in the 19th century when real sources of power and energy from coal, gas and oil became technologically and broadly available.
SD,
“During the last 80 centuries with low CO2 the world warmed at least 4c higher than currently. Higher sea levels. Higher latitude tree lines etc.”
You bloody dimwit, you can’t see the idiocy in your own postings here. Yes the earth has been on a long cooling down trend, with ups and downs, for 8000 years until we came along and stuffed it up with our industrialisation and putting carbon back into the air. May I remind you we have burned in just over 100 years what the earth took 100 million years to bury. When your temperature rises 1 or 2 degrees you get really sick, have a thought for the earth.
Go and look again. Your natural variation bull does not cut it.
Are you trying to tell us that there were no cool periods during that 8,000 years?
That it went straight to ~ 6c higher than now at the beginning of the Holocens and we have had a giant hockey stick ever since?
You’re in absolute denial of the facts.
Nat Var is the only possible answer for the majority of that warming.
And we may discover that Nat Var is accounting for more than that and CO2 is causing cooling, such is the state of our current science.
To panic over that tiny amount of warming, less than half a degree either side of the mean, that when taken to the nearest whole number reads as NOTHING is rank stu-pidity.
SD, further wrote “It would expose the essential and incurable uselessness of so-called renewables: the very reason we stopped using them, progressively from the Stone Age on and then totally in developed nations in the 19th century when real sources of power and energy from coal, gas and oil became technologically and broadly available.”
Examine those words folks. “…stopped using them…. from the stone age”. So he thinks current renewables have not advanced with the “technolgically…” available use of “real sources of power.,. “. So technology works for one and not the other, oh please!
As well as Cognitive Dissonance, perhaps he also suffers from Normalcy bias since he seems incapable of recognizing the situation the earth faces because of the intransigence of governments to action.
Stu
The latest systems (solar and wind) are indeed technologically better than the earlier versions, but they still, and will continue to, suffer from variability and unpredictability.
Until storage systems become better and cheaper than they currently are, solar and wind are but auxiliary energy sources. They have some useful applications, but cannot supply reliable, continuous, power to an industrialised society.
To believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.
As both a yacht racing skipper who has won his share of top trophies and a user of highly developed wind turbines in the bush, yes, we stopped using this energy commercially because we knew it had reached the end of its realistic development.
That’s not to say that you could spend lifetimes awa trillions to extract a little more efficiency but essentially we knew a long time ago we had come to the end of that experiment.
Only someone desperate to wreck society, or stu-pid, could argue otherwise.
You sound just like little Greta, stu.
Have you got Aspergers, too?
It is surely a joke to compare the older, piddling, noisy yacht type generators and their farm equivalents with the current generation of 9 megawatt monsters (now even 12 Mw being planned). Presumably your farm water pump was a typical Comet or Southern Cross gadget which once again is irrelevant in the current context. Have you ever heard of the concept of scale? With the height of the latest turbines comes greater wind strength and reliability. Have you not heard of wind shear?
In reality the latest development of small wind generators has enabled numerous racing yachts to complete long voyages using no other form of power generation. There are even examples of generating power from the props while sailing and even thin film laminate solar attached to sail surfaces. The technology is far from dead.
Once again old chap your allegiance to fossils is telling.
Stu
“With the height of the latest turbines comes greater wind strength and reliability. Have you not heard of wind shear?”
To say nothing of more infrasound and a greater ability to kill birds, bats and insects.
To save the environment for birds, bats and insects of course.
“Birds, bats and insects”, a classic denialist trope. Next you will be saying they are getting so tall they are a danger to aviation. And “Australian wind turbine disease” remains unproven.
Well Stu, since you mention aviation, you might have observed that power transmission lines in some areas have plastic globes on them to increase their visibility, though they are lower than the tip of wind generators. You might be onto something there!
Also fascinating that you describe “Birds, bats and insects” as a “classic denialist trope.” Can the same be said of the bird that caused such delays in the Adani process? Are the Adani protesters all denialists? I guess Bob Brown is now a classic denialist.
Seriously, the ability of alarmists to spin on a ten cent piece is one of their more amusing aspects. “Whatever it takes”?
Well said, BJ!
Stu
“Australian wind turbine disease” remains unproven.
I understand the wind generation companies were able to hire some top scientists to research the problem.
Seems tgeircjobs with tobacco companies had been abolished.
As usual, stu, your ignorance is mind boggling.
The well known domestic wind turbine generators that are still being used in remote locations as they have been for around a century, are as efficient as their bigger brethren, don’t kill birds and have more practical features ie, the ability to automatically angle their blade pitch relative to wind strength so that they rotate at a constant speed through a wide range of wind speeds. They can’t seem to apply that to the bigger turbines and so they have less adaptability.
This technology hasn’t changed much in the last 60 years.
And BTW, my yacht designs are still winning international yacht races. How about you?
And do you know anything about whyisitso’s comment?
I was just quoting you old man “we stopped using this energy commercially because we knew it had reached the end of its realistic development.”
And you didn’t have the wit to realise that I was referring to the Industrial [r]evolution?
“…the latest development of small wind generators has enabled numerous racing yachts to complete long voyages using no other form of power generation”
Voyages, maybe, but not races.
Many modern racing yachts run a diesel motor for the entire length of the race.
Others are allowed to run one for short periods for battery charging, depending on the racing class.
“In reality the latest development of small wind generators has enabled numerous racing yachts to complete long voyages using no other form of power generation.”
No. Even on voyages they still need their diesels twice daily for refrigeration.
It’s now 11 days since Don’s last post on this site. I am concerned that his health may have taken a turn for the worse. Anyone with info?
Thanks, whyisitso, hopefully someone here who is in touch with Don [ stu says he is] can check and report.
Guys, I dropped a text message to him. If I get any news I will pass it on. Stay healthy people, no fun without you.
Here is the growth rate for world population since 1950. As can be seen the growth rate has been falling since 1962 and will continue to fall until 2100 and beyond.
I’ve never seen anybody that understands this projection, but often a certain hostility to the suggestion. Dr Rosling used this real world data in his lectures as well.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Updated-World-Population-Growth-Rate-Annual-1950-2100.png
Neville
The growth rate remains positive.
The result is a rising population.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100-768×547.png
We need a negative growth rate.
Chris
And your policy proposals to achieve a “negative growth rate” are?
I am looking for suggestions.
Chris
Your proposal, essentially your problem.
However, for the sake of discussion, I will offer some thoughts about what Australia could do to meet your twin aims of lowering per capita CO2 emissions and reducing and ultimately reducing population. I see little point in proposing world wide actions, as our influence there is limited.
On per capita emissions, the simplest thing Australia could do would be to end all immigration from developing nations. Every immigrant from a developing nation to a developed one causes an immediate increase in world per capita emissions, as their living standard adjusts to the higher per capita developed rate. The same policy applied by all developed nations would increase the effect.
On population, stopping all immigration would rapidly bring Australian population growth to a halt, followed soon by a gradual reduction in total numbers.
Neither of these actions might meet whatever timetable you have in mind, however.
I suppose we’ll just have to remind our blog donkeys about the real earth data again and again? Here is the OECD 2015 IEA data for TOTAL energy.
Note GEO+ S&Wind are just 2.1% of TOTAL energy.
https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/OECDTOT4.pdf
And here is the IEA non OECD TOTAL energy data for 2015. Note GEO + S &Wind are just 1.2% and they’ve added another 3ppm to co2 levels in the last 12 months.
IOW S&Wind energy are a pathetic joke and TOTAL waste of time and money. We Aussies should follow the developing country’s example and build more coal fired stations ASAP.
https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NONOECDTOT4.pdf
Don says to tell you all normal service should resume shortly.
Stu
Thanks, good to hear.
Thanks, stu and whyisitso for the heads up.
I’ve shown how the pop of our world has increased over a long period of time with a number of links over the last year or more.
So the pop is increasing , but the RATE OF GROWTH has been slowing for about 60 years. In 1950 the pop was 2.5 bn and then doubled to 5 bn in 1987. That’s just 37 years.
The next doubling ( to 10 bn) will take over 80 years ( 1987 to 2070?) and sometime after 2100 the pop will fall into negative growth . Sometime after that date the pop will start to fall at a faster rate. Who knows when and by how much?
But today the growth rate for Africa is a lot faster and will lag the developing countries by a longer period of time. For example they’ve added another 0.9 + billion people in Africa since 1970 or about +2.7 times in just the last 50 years.
Interesting exchange up thread between Chris and Anders Valland on the Precautionary Principle.
Worth scrolling back to read it.
Yes BJ, Anders interesting, blith blithering as usual. His solution is to run around in ever decreasing circles.
Tesla have released the Series 3 here. Another step to removing range anxiety, it is claimed to have a 660km ability, albeit at quite a price. Still it is another step on the road. It is predicted there will be price parity for EV’s and ICE vehicles within 2 to 3 years. Yes I know, rare earths, recycling, source of power etc, so don’t bother. Ingenuity will solve all problems.
The OZ Tesla 3 starting price of 60K hasn’t been confirmed yet, but even if it was about 60K ( but probably more) it seems a clueless choice compared to a Toyota Corolla that can still be purchased for under 22K. And ditto an Hyundai i 30.
And you can drive a lot further on a full tank and fill up anywhere in about 5 minutes. If people are really stupid enough to buy one of these fra-dulent con jobs that is their choice, but it will have ZERO difference to climate or temp for thousands of years.
And there should be no subsidies paid for their sick delusions. Let them carry the full burden for their mistake. I’d pocket the extra 40K and enjoy the convenience and peace of mind + reliability of owning a Corolla or i 30 etc.
Poor little Greta should’ve just just jumped on a plane to the USA, instead she’s been involved in more co2 emissions and crazy posturing about their so called CAGW.
How lucky we are that these DEM con merchants haven’t got their paws on the US presidency YET? But only time will tell and sane, rational people still have hope.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/18/doh-climate-messiah-greta-thunbergs-plastic-boat-trip-will-result-in-two-airline-flights/
Poor little Neville just jumps on denialist websites and emits crazy fossilised posturing
It looks like another good year for Indian farmers with the timely arrival of monsoon rains. Don’t forget Ehrlich told us that this country wouldn’t be able to feed itself and millions of people would be dying and suffering endless famine and misery. Today India is forging ahead.
All this was supposed to happen 30 + years ago and even the USA , the UK and the entire world would suffer a similar fate. So said the eco-loons. Yet people still believe this fool and they are still telling us we have a very limited period to fix our so called CAGW.
And a sizable proportion of the population STILL believe this message of doom.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/monsoon-rebound-prepares-ground-for-bumper-harvest/articleshow/70709020.cms
Neville
You are the eco-loon and the fool.
Luckily, no sizeable proportion of the population believe your message.
The series 3 actually starts at $130,000. But it is a luxury car with full auto control etc so should not be seen as typical of the emerging low end EV’s. For people who never drive interstate and just drive locally, the range and recharge times will not be an issue and servicing costs etc virtually nil. I am up for it as a second vehicle option. Even the oil companies get it. BP have rolled out EV charging points at over 100 servos already. The change has started, get used to it.
Stu
“servicing costs etc virtually nil”
Except when the battery needs replacement? Then in might be cheaper to repkace the car, particularly when, as is inevitable, a recycling charge is introduced.
Tesla misled me with their email, it is the model S that starts at $13,000.
$130,000
Stu
Until your correction, it was looking interesting!
It seems our resident dopes couldn’t care less about co2 emissions or wasting money for a guaranteed ZERO return. Who cares as long as they can yap about vacuous nonsense that doesn’t make any sense.
They’re in this for their infantile left wing political kicks and will vote for fools who don’t even understand about their so called CAGW They clearly want to waste endless billions $ that will deliver no measurable change to temp or climate at all.
Meanwhile the developing countries don’t suffer from these delusions and are building many more CF stns at home and overseas. Just look at their soaring emissions over the last 30 years.
But Neville, you are the infantile fool who is yapping on about vacuous nonsense.
You clearly want to waste endless spans of the environment and of humanity.
Why should we suffer your delusions – Just look at the soaring emissions over the last 150 years.
Chris
“Just look at the soaring emissions over the last 150 years.”
And is it a fundamental assumption of the models that “soaring emissions” = increasing temperatures?
And what are “endless spans of the environment”?
I know we shouldn’t respond to stupid babyish nonsense from fools who don’t understand very simple sums and evidence.
But I’ll just remind our resident donkey that Australia was found to be responsible for 0.006 c of the temp increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
That’s according to the Concordia uni study and that’s irrelevant because we are a net co2 sink as measured by the Japanese Ibuki satellite data.
Neville
Can you give Chris a reference to the Ibuki data please.
So the big baby spews the foolish nonsense about Australia being a net sink.
Science measures the CO2 in the atmosphere above Australia and it increases. If Australia was a net sink, it would fall.
The facts are: https://capegrim.csiro.au/Demo1.pl
Also Australia’s Department of Environment reports that there is a “declining carbon sink from the land sector”. In fact “Emissions for the year to December 2018 are estimated to be 538.2 Mt CO2-e” an increase on previous year.
Once the sink is taken into account the Department predicts that in 2020 Australia’s emisions will still be positive. The department says:
“Emissions in 2020 are projected to be 540 Mt CO2-e,”
You do not get this result if Australia is a net sink. A net sink means that emissions are negative.
Further out, the Department says:
“Emissions to 2030 are projected to grow 4 per cent above 2020 levels, driven by higher emissions from LNG
production, increased transport activity, a declining forest sink in the LULUCF sector, and growth in agricultural
activity after a return to average seasonal conditions.”
Again – growing emissions from 2020 means there is no net sink.
So yet again the truth is the exact opposite of a looney denialist’s lies.
Chris
CO2 spreads throughout the atmosphere. It does not remain in the location where it is emitted. It is quite possible for Australia to be a nett CO2 sink while the Cape Grim numbers continue to rise as a result of emissions elsewhere.
You will have to do better than simple denialism.
PS, no comment on my population and per capita suggestions?
Why do our denialists tell such lies?
Boambee John
You have no evidence that:
” It is quite possible for Australia to be a nett CO2 sink while the Cape Grim numbers continue to rise”.
It is just denialist dogma in the service of fossil fuel companies.
Chris
Evidence?
Put up or shut up!
Evidence for what?????
The claim was “It is quite possible for Australia to be a nett CO2 sink while the Cape Grim numbers continue to rise”?
So where is the evidence?
Where is there the evidence???
What is the basis for this claim??? !!! ???
Chris
What do you find so difficult to understand about the words “quite possible”? Where is your evidence that it is not possible?
Chris
You are the leader here in false accusations.
I responded to your question further up the thread, the first time you asked it.
If you are too idle or unable to find the earlier response that is your problem.
Meanwhile China is committed to building 300 new coal fired plants in a number of developing countries around the world.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal?t=1556610919897
And Jo points out some beautiful home truths about our national grid, too, Neville.
If Qld went alone it would attract all the industry:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/mp-suggests-queensland-cut-off-the-other-states-to-have-cheaper-electricity/
SD those clueless so called renewables + the RET are a bloody disaster. But how do we explain anything to our resident donkey who actually believes OZ alone can lower the world’s co2 levels?
Even the simplest things seem to escape this dope. Or perhaps he thinks that we have our own level of co2 that ends at our coastline , somehow trapped in an invisible dome? Just unbelievable nonsense.
Now our resident donkey thinks that OZ can reduce the planet’s emissions even though it is a well mixed trace gas? I’ve linked to Cape Grim Tas many times to prove my point, but he still prefers ignorance over simple deduction?
We can’t do his thinking for him, but he never seems to understand even the simplest things. I’ve provided him with links that show the developing world’s soaring emissions since 1990, but he STILL doesn’t get it.
Put simply OZ can’t reduce the world’s co2 emissions if the non OECD are increasing their co2 every year. Put simply OZ emits just 1.08 % of global emissions while just China+ India emit 35 to 40%.
That percentage will continue to increase for another ten years and other developing countries will continue to build new CF plants as well. Obviously their so called mitigation of their so called CAGW is just BS and fra-d. Dr Hansen nailed them them on the eve of the Paris clown show in 2015.
Put simply OZ can’t reduce the planet’s co2 level and neither can the OECD and again the RS & NAS report tells us that there will be no reduction in emissions for a thousand years even if the entire world stopped all co2 emissions TODAY.
Will this fool ever wake up?
Sorry, second last line should read” there well be no reduction in co2 levels” not emissions.
Denialists have been well and truely sunk by now.
Chris
Now that you have declared victory, what will you do next?
Perhaps you could enlighten us about how you propose to reduce world population (preferably without resorting to authoritarian o totalitarian methods).
Thanks in anticipation.
More evidence that wind farms are a useless disaster and if there’s no subsidy they pack up and go home.
These bat and bird mincers lose over 50% of their generating capacity after just 10 years in some of the UK studies. Hansen was correct these so called renewables are just BS and fra-d. Yet properly maintained coal plants can last for over 50 years and still generate at acceptable levels. Just chalk and cheese.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/20/paying-much-more-for-much-less/
I wonder if Neville is going to correct his ” BS and fra-d” over net sinks???
Chris
Perhaps when you correct your ”BS and fra-d” over the Cape Grim data?
Nah, that will never happen!
What “BS and fra-d” over Cape grim data???????
Chris
See above, I can’t be bothered writing the question out again.
So what “BS and fra-d” ????
Was this a deliberate false accusation ????
Chris
You are the leader here in false accusations.
I responded to your question further up the thread, the first time you asked it.
If you are too idle or unable to find the earlier response that is your problem.
What false accusations ?????
This is your problem – unless you retract.
Chris
As a matter of routine you respond to differing opinions with one or more of three memes:
Denialist, liar/lies and slander.
The evidence for these accusations is nothing more than that the opinion differs to yours.
If you are unaware that it is possible to look at the same data and come to a different conclusion, then your life experience has been hopelessly narrow.
End of this particular correspondence.
Neville, when 43% of the CO2 emissions of cement get reabsorbed, I wonder if our blith has any idea of net sinks:
“We conclude that carbonation of cement products represents a substantial carbon sink that is not currently considered in emissions inventories.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2840
According to Henry’s law of 1803, the ocean absorbs CO2 below 26.5 c and outgasses CO2 above that:
The main reason CO2 has risen in a linear-like fashion is the Nino 4 region has been warmer than 26.5C all but two months since 1870, outgassing CO2 the whole time, driving the trend.
https://postimg.cc/YjdhL6fq
Few readers of this blog will be able to cope with this criticism of science?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR1Zk-OkGMKqFQuZ-GbmqKl90B2LtzEN3ZBHC98RmB976nz1_IXXZ6rPWyQ
Here is the data from the Ibuki site in 2009. Australia is covered in variations of light blue. Methane is also covered by the Ibuki satellite.
https://global.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/20090528_ibuki_e.html
Here is Willis Eschenbach’s post in 2014 using the 2010 Ibuki data that covered more of the world than the above version. Fires in Kimberley etc show up as red on OZ map and lower NSW to Vic show up as blue. Melb and Sydney are red dots within the blue.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/
As usual, Neville did not even read the data description.
It says; ” It should be acknowledged that the current analysis is based on uncalibrated data and consequently it is not appropriate to interpret estimated individual column averaged dry air mole fraction values. Future work will include a reanalysis of these data, accounting for the results of calibration and validation activities, and adjusting the data processing parameters…Data calibration, processing parameter adjustment, and product validation required for quantitative discussion of the analysis results, will be carried out in the future.”
So what purpose can we put uncalibrated data that is not appropriate for interpreting estimated individual column averaged dry air mole fraction values?
How does this show Australia is a net sink – as claimed?????? The link shows Australia has variously 360-380 ppm “column average” in April 2009. So what?
There is no mention of any sink, but there is a comment on regional surface fluxes data but says this is for the future.
Column average data may be useful, but it needs to be calibrated and validated.
Neville is finding it rather hard to pick facts to back up his denialist dogma.
Chris
“So what purpose can we put uncalibrated data … ?”
Alarmists do this all the time. Perhaps you are best placed to answer your own question?
Evidence?
Still no evidence?
The Japanese satellite data shows a dramatic increase in CO2 over the period of its operation:
2010 [start]
https://data2.gosat.nies.go.jp/gallery/v0280_L3/XCO2_L3_201004010430_v02_80_s.png
2019 [recent]
https://data2.gosat.nies.go.jp/gallery/v0280_L3/XCO2_L3_201904010430_v02_80_s.png
So where are there “net sinks”???????????? except in the fertile imagination of denialists???????
Chris
You have a problem with accepting information that does not match your pre-conceived ideas.
As stated several times, non-OECD countries are continuing to increase their CO2 emissions. This CO2 does not stay over the country where it is emitted, it becomes mixed in the atmosphere. Add the out-gassing under Henry’s Law, and you get a world wide increase in CO2, something that you rabbit on about ad nauseam.
It is thus possible that Australia could be a nett sink, but CO2 measured at Cape Grim still increase.
Dare to think outside your alarmist box.
Actually, just dare to think.
Boambee John
If CO2 measurement from Cape Grim is increasing, then the CO2 partial pressure over Australia must be increasing. This means that the natural sink is not as absorbent as previously. This proves that Australia is not a nett sink.
If Australia was a natural sink, the data from the National Greenhouse Offcie would be very different. It is not possible to increase CO2 at Cape Grim if partial pressures fall. This is based on Henry’s law – the sink is determined by partial pressures. Increasing partial pressure = failing sink. you can only rejuvenate the sink by cooling the environment.
I don’t think you know anything about Henry’s law.
I don’t think you do either, blith.
Here is a comment that fits you like a glove:
“If it bothers you that others do not share a vision of doomsday catastrophe, seek the care of a mental health professional.
“The problem is not weather, which if anything is milder than ever.
The problem is snowflakes who freak out when life is not a 24/7/365 beach party, and who have no sense of history, and no personal knowledge of anything like an actual science.
And of course, the problem of people who want to control everyone and everything, who cannot stand it, literally, that someone somewhere disagrees with them, and are the most ill mannered and hateful people on Earth, who want to have everything, and allow others whom they look down on to have little or nothing.
“Go outside…life is short.”
BJ best to leave this delusional fool to his own blissful ignorance. I thought everyone could understand what I meant when I said OZ is a net sink, but apparently I was far too optimistic.
Co2 is a well mixed gas and there is only 4.4 ppm difference in Cape Grim and Mauna Loa. Therefore even if our continent is a net sink it can’t stop the increase of co2 levels from about 350 ppm in 1990 to about 411 ppm today.
Don’t forget nearly all of that increase over the last 30 years has been emitted by the developing countries and the OECD countries have flat-lined since 1990.
This fool isn’t worth our time and anyone that can’t understand these simple facts should be ignored from now on.
neville
You are the delusional fool sinking in your own blissful ignorance.
While the entire atmosphere is suffering increased CO2 – no place on earth can possibly be a net sink.
The claim of net sink was used in Tasmania but was a transitory claim of which you seem entirely ignorant of.
If you want to peddle the net sink dogma -dry your eyes and try harder.
Chris
Get away from your Alice in Wonderland world where words mean what you want them to mean at any time. Stop reading and regurgitating from alarmist websites. Do some actual independent thinking.
It is quite possible for Australia to be a nett sink (that is, all of Australia’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural means, as well as some from other parts of the world) and for CO2 measurements at Cape Grim to still increase. This is because CO2 emitted elsewhere becomes mixed into the atmosphere over Australia, exceeding the natural capacity for absorbtion.
If, however, in your Alice in Wonderland way, you define “nett absorber” as capable of absorbing all of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted around the world, then in your twisted view you are theoretically correct. But that is not what is being argued.
Boambee John
What is an example of an alarmist website and what was copied?
You do not know what was proposed. It was that Australia IS a net sink.
You lie – I did not define net absorber as absorbing all CO2 emitted around the world.
Australia is not a net sink and this is just a falsification by our house denialists.
Chris
All you have to offer is personal abuse. You reject any concept that disagreement is possible, and are unable to argue in good faith. When you are not doing well, you resort to Alice in Wonderland fantasies of redefinition.
Prove conclusively, using your own arguments, not borrowed ones, that Australia is not a nett sink, exceeding its own emissions.
What sort of trickery is this.
denialist says Australia is a net sink – with no evidence.
When asked for evidence – denialist says, you prove it is not?!!!!!
And they spread accusations of fools.
But it is worse – our denialists have been pointed to the National Greenhouse Office data which shows conclusively that Australian CO2 emissions are positive.
So the facts are known – the opposite of denialist claims – as usual.
Chris
“While the entire atmosphere is suffering increased CO2 – no place on earth can possibly be a net sink.”
I missed this little piece of Alice in Wonderland reasoning earlier.
Compare it to:
“You do not know what was proposed. It was that Australia IS a net sink.”
As I have said earlier, and ad nauseam:
“It is quite possible for Australia to be a nett sink (that is, all of Australia’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural means, as well as some from other parts of the world) and for CO2 measurements at Cape Grim to still increase. This is because CO2 emitted elsewhere becomes mixed into the atmosphere over Australia, exceeding the natural capacity for absorbtion.”
Make up your mind which way you are arguing. Or improve both your reading comprehension and your writing clarity.
The claim was
” Australia IS a net sink.”
You are trying to launch a distraction.
Chris
No, you are launching a distraction.
I can’t be bothered reproducting for yet another time my clear statement.
If you have not comprehended it by now, you are simply not capable of comprehending it.
This makes no sense…
Like much that you say.
Alarmist says the world is doomed, proposes a twin track solution, but has no policies to offer to implement the proposed solution.
Willis continues his story of the bat, bird and bug killers or otherwise called wind turbines. The subsidies for S&Wind should be removed ASAP and then we should get on with building new HELE CF plants before we face ever more serious power outages.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/21/explaining-wind-turbine-lethality/
This article by ex greenie Michael Shellenberger is probably the best I have read on the disastrous S& Wind industries.
He worked for years on green energy projects and thought he was doing the right thing until he actually looked at the evidence and looked at the sums.
S& Wind are a disaster and obviously will not change the climate or temp at all and like Dr Hansen he has become a strong advocate for Nuclear power.
This article is a long read and has many links to prove his arguments and he explains how and why he changed his mind.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
So I take it from your advocacy for this story that you accept that pending significant change the earth as we know it is stuffed.
And if you do a bit more research you will find Dr Hansen is not anti wind and solar. He just thinks that things are moving much too slowly. Here is something he co-wrote. “To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.”
I tend to agree with him, because there are too many laggards out there such as yourself talking down the problem and holding back serious action. But that is how it is , at least here, where perhaps gerontology might be a more appropriate subject to discuss.
Stu
The laggards are the so-called “developing” countries, particularly India and China, which will continue to increase CO2 emissions until at least 2030, and probably beyond.
Nothing the developed countries do, including shutting down completely, will stop the increase of CO2 emissions.
If you are really concerned, off you go to Beijing and Delhi to lobby there. Note Hansen’s words “global decarbonization”.
Let us know how you go.
So what exactly do you propose? It sounds like a classic sit on your hands and do nothing approach, great.
Time you realised that things don’t always flow along past and current trajectories, but can change abruptly, just like the climate.
I have hope, but it sounds like you are a defeatist.
Stu
Mitigation of CO2 emissions is not going to happen in any significant way.
This is not here cause for despair. Lomborg (a believer in CAGW) has put out numerous suggestions for more useful ways of adapting to change.
Unlike you, who only offers desperate measures to stop what (if we believe what you are saying) is unstoppable.
Stop chasing the mitigation mirage, look to adaptation. Do not despair.
I suspect that I have more hope than you do for the future. Being an alarmist causes despair.
So stu “tends to agree” with Whinnying Jimmy, his go to for cli-cat. Who’d’ve guessed?
While us “laggards” are unreasonably sceptical simply because his prophesies are merely 97% wrong and getting wronger by the day.
Could it be that us “laggards” are aware that there has been nothing happening since global records began recording that “catastrophic” 0.8c warming that hasn’t happened in the past?
But never mind, stueyluv, little Greta is on your side, too.
Ah, the joys of consensual enuresis!
So much to get mutually hysterical about!
Here is Jennifer Marohasy’s recent talk on the GBR, sea levels etc.
No it is you who is defeatist. You reject emerging technologies like EV’s that along with say level 4 Autonomy promise to be extremely disruptive agents. Carbon burning will wind back through economics more than legislation and technology already has shown the means of scrubbing carbon from the air (uneconomic at this stage) but promising. The oil outfits are fitting EV chargers to service stations. The change has begun get used to it.
Syu
And these emerging technologies in their present standard will prevent the ongoing increase in CO2 emissions in India and China how?
I don’t reject those technologies, I simply do not see them having a significant effect until they have been very much improved.
But you stay in your slough of despair, you seem happy there.
Are denialists really just psychopathic zombies???
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724?fbclid=IwAR2VptkKi0pf4n7Lb3Sknj0PHN7Dl1n_xBzvnWO1gWl_IRpohf10FGM4s60
The principal alarmist is reduced to quoting pop psychology!
Nev,
That presentation by JM in Maroochydore is truly appalling. But it has one redeeming feature, it contradicts your belief that sea level is the same everywhere across the Pacific.
When did anyone ever claim that, stu?
My recollection is that someone called SD wrote this amongst other ramblings: “Stu sez: “I think you will find SEA LEVEL is a much more complicated concept than you realise.”
No stu. You couldn’t get a simpler concept.
Particularly when it is not doing anything or going anywhere.
The seas and oceans to the east of Australia form the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data.”
I’ve also been trying to tell you that trade winds blowing for months on end mound the oceans which then break back and cause many of the ocean currents and that this causes much of the SLR in the tropical atolls.
And when the trades stop blowing as in an el Nino or PDO shift, these sea levels drop.
On the east coast of Australia with prolonged northerly winds you get a resultant northerly [cold] set and with prolonged southerlies you get a southerly [warm] set.
It’s known as the ocean aggressively seeking equilibrium.
Which is why it is hard to push your bath water down one end of the bath while you dry yourself.
And in a “stilling pond” such as Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour you can see that equilibrium at work over the last century or so.
Telling us that while it fluctuates somewhat it is not doing anything or going anywhere.
And when you achieve the wisdom to understand this fact and the consequence that therefore climate is doing likewise, you will be a much more aware and mature person.
More good news, Dr Tim Ball has won his case involving Mann and has been awarded costs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Incompetant denialists think this is “pop psycology”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724?fbclid=IwAR2VptkKi0pf4n7Lb3Sknj0PHN7Dl1n_xBzvnWO1gWl_IRpohf10FGM4s60
But at least they can spell “psychology”?
Still, I can understand alarmists believing in zombies. After all, they believe in fairy dust and unicorn f@rts as power sources.
Boambee John
Who believes in fairy dust and unicorn f@rts?
Just how many lies are you intent on spreading?
Chris
Anyone who believes that solar, wind and batteries in tbeir present state of development can reliably and continuously power a modern industrial society.
More lies, I have never said anything like that.
Why lie so much?
Poor ol’ blith thinks it is so necessary to manufacture groupthink to sell his religion that he has to keep posting the same garbage.
Try a little logic, balance, scepticism and rationality for a change, blith:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/re-evaluating-the-manufacture-of-the-climate-consensus/
More science for denialists
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=GDBlURiqSDp0msxiiVlXLdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OFAuvUf3smNPgQh_x6w3tkX-JXRoLf0zBLgBVwxe-KojbNcM0NGhYxTZ1I2__hVB250XD4id-a3WB4UxBGuUGGqgDrN9pxhOxSafND7Mm3bdzm2kTP9xPKxyxDHSEYv-b1iw39tjG02fP_6kp5BZIuloyn2l-hYQzeoqCB_fY6Wb1hYL5zjdzMiOpH-MygmqM4h7odZwseFSPxLCE3c30vbSfdrTh38tQJcEqYWidoc95EmEcOT4N_OIAs9SMNfxvjhfC7oeOkIrfa3SHjWt0l
And our blith goes into super-denial mode alongside his hockey stick manufacturers.
How many much more credible papers would you like to refute that blither, blith?
100?
1,000?
******* The End *****
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/regemcrufull.jpg
from Tamino:
” Look at the spike at the end. The big, and most importantly the steep, scary spike at the end. That’s not an artifact of the way proxy ages were computed, or how the reconstruction was done, or the effect of proxy drop-out as records become more sparse in the later period. It’s what the thermometers say. Ignore them at your peril.
As scary as that is, what’s far more frightening is that it’s not going to stop.”
See more at: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/
I only wish we could use the spike to do to Alan Jones what he wants done to others.
That’s it, I’m convinced. Doom is upon us, the end is nigh. There is naught to do but “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
Yet there is just a nagging doubt, Chris’ proposed solution, to reduce per capita emissions and slow the growth in, and ultimately to reduce absolutely, world population, would take decades to have any significant effect. Perhaps doom is not quite as close as suggested?
Still, we have been warned!
To think that these groupthink blitherers like Tamino and our own blith can be brainwashed and consensualised into believing their own manufactured data when during the complete “blade” of their contrived hockey stick, sea levels have actually fallen yet during that long “handle”, sea levels have been 3 metres higher, tree lines have been in much higher latitudes and temperatures have been many degrees warmer.
Years ago it was the alarmist ambition to eradicate just the medieval warm period.
Today they have to deny ALL historic warming.
You don’t HAVE to be stupid to be an alarmist-denier.
But it sure helps.
SD
Sometimes I get the impression that for Chris, the gerbil worming is simply a peg on which to hang a wider agenda of population control.
Certainly his warnings of imminent doom from gerbil worming do not seem to be connected with the long periods usually required to reduce populations.
Absolutely, BJ. And when these alarmists realise the warming is so tiny after the natural el Ninos are removed they are desperate to prove that this tiny, unnoticeable amount simply has to be magnified through any means possible so they never stop cooking the books.
BTW, that graph of Tamino’s that is supposed to represent Marcott’s claims in his paper seems wrong in many respects.
Shaun Marcott was into hockey sticks but not to Tamino’s extent:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/md99-2275_jiang2015_31.png
However Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit points out the poor quality data that Marcott chose to use to suit his argument when he could have used high quality data:
https://climateaudit.org/2015/01/08/ground-truthing-marcott/
Neville,
Before you get too excited about your “news” on the Ball/Mann case, here is what Mann says.
“ The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.
The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.
The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.
This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.“
Just another example of the hyper lies we expect from Wattsup etc.
Or from Mann?
So, stu, you shout insults and protect a “scientist” who has continually refused to disclose the data that his exaggerated claims were based on?
Mann’s case against Ball for requesting this data was thrown out so how do you rate his chances of an appeal?
The frivolous action, brought by Mann, was an attempt to keep from having his data exposed to the world. Now, hopefully, Mark Steyn can get the data in his court cases that Mann has filed against him.
And you seem very sympathetic with this sort of legal action from a “scientist” who gives the distinct impression that he has something to hide.
Why would you choose to do that?
And the case was dismissed for delay. Why did Mann drag the chain for so long? Afraid of what the discovery process might reveal?
And an order for costs against Mann will be defied? Does the US have the concept of contempt of court?
That you (Stu) defend Mann says much about you ignorance of science and the scientific method.
Apparently one of the reasons the Mann case was dismissed was that he refused to produce his data in court to back up his position.
Now why would he do that? Surely if he had confidence in his own work he would be happy to use it in court to beat his opponents around the ears. Maybe he is more aware than Stu of the weaknesses of his work?
For some convenient reason D.C. judges have ruled that it is a tort in D.C. to question Mann’s reasoning.
No wonder he feels confident in engaging in court cases to shut people up who question his science and ethics.
I suspect all the alarmists will be working on that one.
Oh you haters of ad hominem, so ready to jump on Mann. That being so here is another judgement involving your mate. “ a libel claim against an article written by Tim Ball was thrown out due to the letter not being sufficiently credible to cause damage to a professional climate scientist. While Ball’s supporters celebrated the outcome as a “A great victory for free speech,” B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood was critical of Ball’s work:
”[…] despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth,” Justice Skolrood wrote.”
Not exactly an endorsement of Ball though he did, sort of, win the case. Although he did get referenced as a “professional climate scientist”, which is debatable.
He and you guys will be in the history books with the other great denier just departed, David Koch.
Stu sez; ”[…] despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth,” Justice Skolrood wrote.”
I notice you don’t provide a link to that, stu.
But you could try this site and get the court report too:
“Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.”
“As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann’s version top, Ball’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.”
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
Stu
“Although he did get referenced as a “professional climate scientist”, which is debatable.”
Why is it debatable? Because he challenged one of the secular saints of alarmism? Or do you have substantive reasons for your slanderous statement?
We are much more interested in the data behind the Hockey Stick message than the HS messengers, stu, but with messengers like Mann who won’t reveal their genuinely suspected corrupt data and the world’s true believers promoting corrupt HSs to send us broke, the rational world is wanting to get all the details.
You obviously don’t think this is a good idea for some reason.
Can I recommend you read up on this fakery at the bakery over at Climate Audit.
It could improve your understanding of the problem enormously.
If you are interested in not being conned, that is.
Another stake in the heart of alarmism.
“GLOBAL WARMING
‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?
“The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quite certain Earth will be in trouble if the global temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. But how can anyone know? According to university research, “global temperature” is a meaningless concept.
“Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,” says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the “validity of a ‘global temperature.’”
The concept of a “global average temperature” has always been fake science.
I see our silly donkeys are on their old, delusional merry go round as usual. Once again hear it from the Chief Scientist, because the truth must be told before a Senate hearing.
We know these fools are religious fanatics and lovers of Dr Hansen’s BS & fra-d, but you would think true facts and the DATA would wake them from their nightmares sooner or later.
We Aussies are wasting billions $ every year and all for a guaranteed ZERO change to temp or climate by 2100 and beyond. Unless Nature steps in and changes things for us. Perhaps a slow down after a cool AMO change, who knows?
Nevill
This is why I keep telling Stu that if he believes in CAGW and wants to save the world from it he should travel to Beijing or Delhi and lobby there, because that is where most of the increase in CO2 emissions is coming from.
He seems uninterested. Perhaps he doesn’t like curry or Chinese food?
A classic piece of cherry picking by Bolt. Get serious. By the same token our contribution to the effort in WW2 was about the same, are you suggesting we should not have bothered?
To the contrary, our contribution to WW II was quite significant, particularly in the Middle East and Bomber Command.
You have used this pathetic trope before. Try not to display your historical ignorance.
Do you deny that the Chief Scientist made the statement?
Still, if you think that token efforts help, you could follow the course I suggested a while ago to lead by example.
Sorry, didn’t you say the suggestion was not worthy of me? Or is taking your own advice too difficult for you?
Here’s Steve McIntyre’s post about Upside down Mann and the video at the end says it all about using DATA upside down. Yet people still listen to this fool?
But I think these guys in the video look a lot brighter than the usual fools we see running their so CAGW agenda. Don’t forget Mann is the US DEMs number ONE “go to guy” on their CAGW alarmist scare and yet he never attempted to take legal action against Steve.
Why is that I wonder? Tim Ball and Mark Steyn YES but McIntyre NO. Think about it.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
A few hundred independent climate scientists from many countries have just confirmed some well known, fundamental points in a joint statement on climate science:
1. Climate change is a fact. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with naturally-driven cold and warm cycles.
2. After leaving the Little Ice Age (around 1870 AD), it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a warming-up period. This is fully in line with the natural behaviour of the climate system. However, measurements show that the temperature-increase is significantly less than mainstream models predict.
3. Anthropogenic Global Warming is only a hypothesis. There exists no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the principal cause of global warming. On the contrary, latest insights confirm that more CO2 has only a modest influence on climate but it is hugely beneficial for agriculture, forestry, and for the photosynthesis that is the basis of life on Earth.
4. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that increasing CO2 levels have an enhancing effect on natural disasters. Quite the reverse, there are many indications that most CO2-reduction measures have a devastating effect on wildlife, land use and economic development.
5. Energy policy must be based on scientific and economic realities. We argue strongly against a harmful and unrealistic “2050-carbon-neutral policy”. There is no climate emergency and therefore no cause for panic and alarm. If superior approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and transition. Our aim should always be reliable and affordable energy at all times.
Another super hippo buys a beautiful low lying seaside property. He joins Gore, Flannery, Di Capprio, Ford, Attenborough, etc who insist we ” do as they say, but definitely not what they do” brigade.
Abysmal ignorance enhanced to an art form. But we know that there are plenty of left wing loonies who will still believe any junk that these con merchants throw their way.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/24/sea-level-rise-president-obama-just-bought-a-beachside-property/
Here’s poor Greta’s “I want you to panic” statement at the world economic forum. Our house is on fire and we must do everything to put it out and we’ve just 12 years to limit warming to 1.5 c.
This girl has Asperger’s syndrome and severe autism and yet she is used and abused by so called adults to further their cause.
The Pope, politicians, and plenty more of these con merchants should be ashamed of themselves for using this poor girl to further their crazy agenda. Let’s face it, if they feel so strongly about their so called CAGW they should be taking their campaign to China, India etc and leave poor Greta alone.
What denialists cannot explain or understand…
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/inline-images/era_monthly_and_ten-year_temperatures_v1.png
We understand the real temps very well, blith:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979
Chris Kenny on the Canberra’s Writers Festival, the Bubble Effect and how badly out of touch much of the media was with the last election.
Poor Don, I didn’t realise how lonely a 51%-of-the-country conservative must feel living in Canberra:
“As you peruse these words, dear reader, spare a thought for me, off on a perilous and selfless mission this very day to burst the Canberra bubble from within. Speaking at the Canberra Writers Festival I will be surrounded by a plethora of pundits, mostly bubble deniers, determined to correct the error of my ways.”
“It will be a fascinating exercise, entering the bubble, to see what they have learned. The political/media class all seemed to think Malcolm Turnbull was unassailable when all of last year the national energy guarantee and his self-imposed Newspoll albatross had him under threat. And when Scott Morrison assumed the leadership a year ago today, they wrote off the Coalition.
“Why did they get it so wrong? Have they learned anything from a series of other collective misjudgments (overestimating Kevin Rudd, underestimating Tony Abbott, misjudging border protection, misjudging climate policy, underestimating Donald Trump and dismissing Brexit)?”:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/trying-to-burst-greenleft-bubble/news-story/50380a3af360d346d930a77fc54ba322
What disgusting, perverted, lying comment is this from our house denialist?
“This girl has Asperger’s syndrome and severe autism and yet she is used and abused by so called adults to further their cause.”
Greta Thunberg does not have “severe autism” she has a different level autism, and Asperger’s syndrome and autism are the same thing.
This is the foul dishwater our denialists have been reduced to.
You need to read up on it more instead of your usual hysterical blithering, blith.
“Melbourne researchers are using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to show that cortical inhibition, a common brain process that allows the suppression of brain cell activity, is impaired among young people with high-functioning autism, but not among young people with Asperger’s disorder.”
Aspergers and Autism are not necessarily the same thing but they are both a mental disorder, often serious, and someone with those problems should certainly not be used in this way.
This might help with your mental problems, blith:
https://www.kennethrobersonphd.com/difference-aspergers-syndrome-autism/
I see that Chris is continuing the tradition of personal abuse of anyone with a different opinion.
Is civilised debate too difficult for the alarmist denier of reality? Well, it probably is for those who rely on “homogenised” temperature records.
Everyone should vomit at the conduct and not camouflage falsely it as “different opinion”.
Boambee John has implicated itself in the foul behaviour -demonstrating the old adage – “birds of a feather, stick together”.
Chris
Give it a break.
Your perpetual prattle about “denialists”, “lies” and “slander” directed against any who dare to challenge any aspect of your CAGW beliefs is tiresome enough.
Now you sling personal abuse at those who criticise the use of a child with psychological problems to advance your cause. You are the one who makes rational people want to vomit as you come out with your “disgusting, perverted, lying comment”.
No “birds of a feather” will “stick together” with you, vultures have better taste than to do that.
Don’t be a cry-baby.
Only those being paid back in their own coin get precisely what they serve up, so your constant wingeing is utterly boring and exposes the tricks you lying trolls play.
Your lies have been exposed – get used to it.
Chris
More lies and slander.
What lies and tricks have been exposed? That Greta doesn’t actually have psychological problems? That she is not being used by adults to assist them in pursuing a particular agenda?
Your pathetic prevarications are routinely exposed here, together with your absolute inability to argue a logical case.
Get over your tears, and get used to being, in your own words, repaid “in your own coin” when, lacking any actual evidence, you try to use abuse to bluff your way out af the hole you have dug.
PS, learn to spell “whingeing” you illiterate fool.
Once again this argument has become circular and very boring. So to try a different angle, watch this video. It does not mention climate or sea level or temperature or even coal. But it does make a really good case for the disruptive effects of Electric Vehicles in the near future and the resultant effect on the oil market and production of internal combustion engined vehicles. There are some interesting statistics and reference to a leading futurist. Anyhow, it is a good example of changes coming at us that will have profound effects even on fossils who right now see no future for EV’s. I am interested in your thoughts, but only if you watch all of it. It is not long.
https://youtu.be/aUC6lsLr04I
Stu
Has it been peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable journal?
No it is not. It is not science, it is about economics, business and engineering. Watch it and learn. It makes some really good points, and I think is very credible. Get off your soap box and try a different angle.
Stu
There are good points about electric vehicles, and also bad points.
Set aside whether they will ever be “carbon (dioxide) neutral” or not, without a reliable, continuous, source of power, they remain a rich person’s toy. Will you today buy one and get rid of your internal combustion vehicle? If not, then implicitly you accept this point.
And the power source remains an issue, and will do so until solar, wind and batteries are very much improved or replaced by a better “renewable” power source.
BJ, you wrote “they remain a rich person’s toy. Will you today buy one and get rid of your internal combustion vehicle? If not, then implicitly you accept this point.”. Sorry but that statement proves you did not watch the video. Watch it and you will see why I can make that claim. The transition from luxury transport to ubiquity in a short time is the whole point. If you watch it you will see why that is much more likely than not. Yes, it is my plan to buy one in a few years when the economies of scale kick in and ICE vehicles rapidly become dinosaurs. It is about disruptive change and transition to new technology. Oh and by the way it answers the pick-up truck (ute) question. And maybe you should thInk of offloading your Ford shares. As I wrote earlier it is not about climate change, it is economics, but the climate will be the winner. Watch the vid, it is only 20 minutes long. It is American, and we will be laggards, but as all our vehicles are imported we will be dragged along.
Stu
Conflicts of interest.
You wrote:
“And maybe you should thInk of offloading your Ford shares.”
This implies that my doubts about EVs are based on a financial interest in ICE vehicles.
Previously you suggested that I hold shares in fossil fuel companies, implying that my doubts about the current viability of solar and wind are based on my financial interests.
These are insulting and slanderous allegations, for which you have absolutely no evidence.
For the record, I have no direct financial interests in ICE or fossil fuel companies. However, like most people these days, I hold indirect superannuation investments. Some of these might hold such shares. They might also hold shares in EV manufacture or renewable power companies. Like most investors, I simply do not know, so I have no conflict of interest.
But, since you raised the subject, please advise us what financial interests you might have in EV or battery manufacture and in renewables. Surely you would not want us to think that you might be pursuing your own personal financial benefit with your lobbying here, would you?
As for EVs, they have their place, and without doubt will make inroads into the future market.
However, your problem is that you are clearly a sucker for a fast talking salesman with a glossy video. I encourage you to continue on that path. I would prefer that the bugs be ironed out at your cost rather than mine.
But don’t cr@p on about EVs saving the plajet by reducing CO2 emissions or other forms of pollurltion. Not going to happen for a while yet.
And, to borrow from your mate Chris, if you sling insults and slanders around, expect to be repaid “in your own coin”.
… EVs saving the planet … forms of pollution …
Geeezzzz we’re back on the EVs AGAIN. 1. First up EVs are charged today by fossil fuels and definitely NOT S&Wind.
2.EVs shouldn’t have the unfair advantage of subsidies to enhance sales. This is just another cost to the poor taxpayer.
3. The new charging facilities will cost a lot of money and a full charge takes far too long.
4. They are far too expensive, see costs for new Tesla Model 3s in OZ 2019. $66 K to 100 K + for high end models.
5.The battery life is on average about 7 years and then you have to decide on a new battery or a new car and the old toxic battery has to disposed of in a safe area.
These are just some of the reasons not to buy an EV and if you remove the subsidies they will not be able to compete with ICE vehicles.
And of course no change to climate or temp and little change to co2 emissions by 2100 and beyond. IOW Just a pointless exercise and a complete waste of time and money.
https://www.motoring.com.au/tesla-model-3-australian-pricing-revealed-118772/
Watch the video. It is not about your paranoia regarding sources of power. It is about the ‘fact’ that EV’s are going to be a thing whether you think that is sustainable or not. It is not about subsidies. It is about competition. It is about a looming surplus of oil with resultant unprofitability for oil companies. It is not about the price of a Tesla. Watch the video. And by the way the manufacturers seem to be offering ten year warranties on the batteries, implying a much longer forecast life. Watch the video.
The video makes no claims about climate and temperature, they are car guys. WATCH THE VIDEO. It is about early production runs and the need for small scale premiums versus later moves to cheaper versions, less luxurious, have a look at Tesla directions. A major cost component is the autonomous vehicle systems, which are used to help justify the cost, take them out and things are cheaper. WATCH THE VIDEO.
There are many reasons why EV’s are superior to ICE types. For the bulk of people and their trips they will actually save time by not calling into a servo nce or twice a week. They can charge overnight. Watch the video.
Already a big chunk of the world fleet of buses is electric. Not because of the climate but because of pollution. A big piece of the Canberra bus fleet just got replaced by electric trams. Oh and Canberra power is mostly renewable. Things are changing.
WATCH THE VIDEO.
Yes I know, you guys won’t watch it because you are afraid to confront the reality of technology evolution. Thats ok, I understand. BTW, are you still using an IBM-XT to communicate?
Stu
” It is about a looming surplus of oil with resultant unprofitability for oil companies.”
Whatever happened to “peak oil”? Another failed alarmist prediction?
Stu
“Canberra power is mostly renewable.”
ROFLMAO.
To borrow from John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious maan!”
Canberra’s electricity supply will be 99.9% renewable by 2020.
Chris
More lies.
The ACT Town Council has bought into “renewable” generation in various places, most well outside the ACT.
In theory, these “investments” might by 2020 provide energy equivalent (over an extended period) to that used by the ACT over that same period.
In practice, the variability and unpredictability of renewabaubles means that some power on a day to day basis must come from fossil fuels.
Typical alarmist dishonesty. If they were honest, they could record how much is generated each week by their renewabaubles, and limit their power use in the next week to that amount. But that would expose the reality to the residents, who might wake up to the con trick.
So what has happened in the real world since 1990? Well a lot more co2 emissions and co2 levels have increased by about 60 ppm, see Mauna Loa and Cape Grim data since 1990. Or 350ppm to 411ppm.
The cost to try and reduce co2 emissions has been horrendous and Lomborg estimates this is now about 1 trillion+ $ per year.
The 2015 Paris clown show only commits the world to FIX just 1% of their so called problem at a cost of 1+ trillion $ every year. Once again a TOTAL waste of resources for a guaranteed ZERO return on the so called investment.
Here Lomborg tries to explain in simple terms why we’re been going backwards on their so called fight against their so called CAGW.
Meanwhile the developing countries are building new Coal Fired stns and India + Africa could soon pick up the pace.
Poor, silly stu [along with the two galahs re references {what a waste of time}] refuses to get that the average customer who has to foot the bill will always and only buy new tech if it works.
And works properly, in all aspects.
And represents good value.
EVs don’t and maybe never will.
SD, You still have not watched the video (all of it) have you? I agree totally, the tech has to work or no one will buy it. But it is working, getting cheaper, is better in many ways than what it replaces. It will be better value over its working life than current vehicles. And did you know the average age of the Australian car fleet is about ten years. So your blithering about batteries etc is nonsense. This change is coming. But like everything else in the debate here you will be left wallowing in ten years. I hope someone holds you to account for your current statements at that time.
I think this latest exchange has proved you guys are all on the same path, blinded by history and with no vision, poor old sausages.
Gosh and of course a complete waste of time at horrendous cost and ZERO change for their SC CAGW by 2050, or 2100 and beyond.
See why above and the results since 1990, just proves the case. EVs are fossil fuel charged cars and if they really increased in much higher numbers that problem would be enhanced again and again.
The maths couldn’t be easier to understand yet everyone suddenly lacks the ability to reason and retreat to the comfort of their fantasy world.
IOW stick to the real world, because it’s much cheaper in the long run and we’ll still have reliable much cheaper energy.
Stu
“average age of the Australian car fleet is about ten years.”
So, greater than the likely useful life of the EV batteries? Read that warranty carefully. What does it say about the decline in efficiency over the life of the battery? The effect of low temperatures on the efficiency of the battery?
But, as I said above, go for it, better you pay to iron out the bugs than I do.
You guys still have not watched the video have you?
Stu
No, I do not share your fascination with immature technologies, though I am sure it was a great sales talk.
Apart from that, you are now not even trying to claim that EVs will save the world by reducing CO2 emissions (at least until renewable and battery technologies improve), so why are you clogging up the thread with sales promotions?
Become an early adopter if you wish, but focus on the subject at hand.
See, there is the proof that when a head is in the sand there is little meaningful communication. Had you watched it you would know what I was talking about. I am not suggesting early adoption. But there are sufficient people who are early adopters and flush with funds.
It and I are saying that this is the most significant emerging technology right now and in less than 5 years, promises to be the dominant force in the automotive industry. But you can’t get your head out of your arse and see that this is just about technology and commerce, and all your climate bull shit is irrelevant to the argument. Sure once EV’s take over and ICE vehicles disappear (from production) there will likely be climate effects through reduced CO2. Some will of course be fossil powered, at least part of the time, but many are likely to use renewables. That is certainly my plan, when they are economic. I already have the generation capacity, just need a reasonably priced vehicle, which will come, even with luddites like you guys saying it is not possible.
Current trends in price performance of renewable technology and battery tech coupled with a change in direction from existing and new entrants to the automotive market make all this certain, not problematic.
And BTW it was not a sales oriented pitch at all, but you would know that if you watched it. You stick with your chaff and horse whips and keep out of our way.
And if you really want to talk about disruptive technology change, which of course you don’t as it does not suit your luddite position, we could move on to the real game changer which will be ubiquitous level 4 autonomy for vehicles. It will remove many of our current urban transport problems, but don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.
Do stop your blithering, stu.
When you drive in the bush you need vehicles that can go through at least 600 mm of water.
When the whole electric system of an EV [motor and batteries] are immersed at this depth just imaging the effect it would have.
If you try to raise the electrics above 600 mm they become very unstable and non functional vehicles.
As prissy little town cars they may have their moments but your two silly mates don’t have a clue about serious work vehicles.
Stu
“and all your climate bull shit is irrelevant to the argument.”
So, is this acknowledgement that EVs have nothing to offer in terms of saving the world from CAGW?
And despite pushing them as the way of the future here, you are not going to jump on the bandwagon?
Most of us l, unlike apparently you, are able to monitor the development of new technology without hysterically trying to ram it down others’ throats.
You also say that “when a head is in the sand there is little meaningful communication.” Sounds like your approach to any view contrary to the “received” climate change wisdom. But feel free to keep your head buried in the alarmist sand.
PS, don’t forget to tell us about any financial conflicts of interest you might have re EVs, batteries and renewables. You are quick to accuse others, but slow to declare your own position.
“When you drive in the bush you need vehicles that can go through at least 600 mm of water.
When the whole electric system of an EV [motor and batteries] are immersed at this depth just imaging the effect it would have.
If you try to raise the electrics above 600 mm they become very unstable and non functional vehicles.
As prissy little town cars they may have their moments but your two silly mates don’t have a clue about serious work vehicles.
Reply”
Jeez, I wonder why the industry does not take that HUGE percentage of the market into account. Enjoy your special status as the rest of us move forward. You land guys always want special status.
What a silly argument to make. Get real.
Don’t you ever watch the adds for SUVs [the biggest slice of the total car market] and Crew Cabs etc?
They are all supposed to be able to cope with Australian conditions and their owners have ambitions of being able to do just that.
EVs have no chance of meeting those performance standards.
And most new car buyers are perfectly aware of that.
Let alone all the charging impossibilities in remote areas.
Most Australians live in Australia.
Where do you live, stu?
Stu
You still have not responded to my question about conflicts of interest above.
What’s the matter? Cat got your typing finger?
Stu
Given your lack of a response, can we assume at this point that you have significant investments in one or more of EVs, batteries, solar or wind generation, and your head in the sand approach to climate change is to defend those interests?
I certainly hope not, but your reluctance to respond does leave the question hanging.
Of course not. You must be driven by a money intent, what is your story?
Stu
My story is that twice, once this morning and another time on annearlier thread, you suggested that I had shares in either ICE manufacture or fossil fuel companies.
This implied that my position on climate change had an ulterior financial bias. I have on both occasions denied this, but felt it reasonable to ask whether your positions on EVs, batteries or renewables were influenced by possible financial possible to you.
Fair enough for you to imply ulterior motives to me, fair enough for me to ask about your motives.
PS, if you wish to find my original question, search the page for conflict of interest.
Another top article from Dr Roy Spencer covering so much of the dishonesty of the alarmist con merchants. He covers a lot of the recent nonsense from the clueless MSM , like Amazon fires, poor Greta saving on co2 BS, Greenland recovery after a few warm Saharan winds, SLR, etc.
But the greatest fra-d and BS is the claim that the Paris circus is tackling their so called CAGW. But the fact is that so far Paris hasn’t even managed to achieve anything. Co2 levels continue to increase and the non OECD countries co2 emissions have soared since 2015.
In fact in the last year co2 levels have increased by 3 ppm. Hansen was correct, Paris 2015 was just BS and fra-d.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/how-the-media-help-to-destroy-rational-climate-debate/#comments
BJ, “So, is this acknowledgement that EVs have nothing to offer in terms of saving the world from CAGW?”
Not at all, the point of the exercise as merely to highlight the development of the auto industry independent of the whole climate palava. But you guts cant seem to let go of your anti AGW paranoia even for a moment. The case fir EV’s stands in its own.
Sorry, cant find my glasses. Typos there, “was merely” and “you guys”, sorry
Stu
Once you find your specs, you can do something about your lying, slanderous, allegatiins of financial impropriety directed against me.
You could start with your direct, lying, slanderous allegation at 2132 last night, then proceed to your earlier indirect allegations.
Unless, of course, you are happy to be repaid “in your own coin”?
Merely responding to your challenge about my supposed conflict of interest, which is non existent. I did not say you were in the pay of anyone, merely asked if you were. So calm down old chap and declare that a draw. Both just convinced by alternative propositions.
Stu
No you were not “Merely responding to (my) challenge”.
If you were you might have simply said that you have no relevant financial interests. Instead you said:
“Stu
August 26, 2019 at 9:32 pm
Of course not. You must be driven by a money intent, what is your story?”
You stated flatly that I must be driven by a money intent. You did not ask if I were.
Still, I suppose that in the Alice in Wonderland world of climate alarmism, where words have different meanings to suit the argument, and temperatures are “homogenised” to whatever you want them to be, it could seem that making an unsupported, slanderous, lying allegation might seem like a denial of any personal interest on your part. But not in the real world.
No, I do not “declare a draw”.
The case for your EVs is complete nonsense. If there wasn’t the absurd subsidies available for these clueless things they would have to pack up and go home.
Elon has lived on the taxpayer teat for a long time and it might be instructive to find out how much and for how long?
The problems with EVs should be a concern for all the gullible dopes.
They are far too expensive compared to ICE vehicles.
They take too long to charge, slow charge 10 to 40 hours or about 40 mins to 1 hour with a fast charger.
The cost for new infrastructure for all suburbs, inner city, high rise, towns etc would be ridiculously high.
They will be charged from fossil fuels sources, not idiocy like S&Wind.
They will require special areas to handle and store the toxic waste from batteries that have to be replaced every 7 years.
They have a limited range compared to ICE vehicles and a long time to recharge as above.
I can think of more problems but the biggest is the fact that none of this delusional nonsense will change the climate or temp for thousands of years. See RS & NAS report Q&A 20.
Simply put we have all this pain for ZERO gain and at a cost of trillions $ added to all their other so called CAGW mitigation.
Nev, wow, where to start.
“Elon on the taxpayer teat.” Which part of his business interests are you pointing at? Or is it all of them?
“EV’s are too expensive compared to ICE vehicles”. Many, like the Tesla S, are luxury machines with features not found in conventional cars, e.g. semi-autonomous driving, big data screens, heads up displays etc. Also performance tends to be way superior.
Regarding the cheaper models like the Leaf and Bolt they may still have a premium price offset by lower operating and service costs. In any event the nub of my argument was about future pricing not now. The difference being volume production, reducing material costs, and leaving off the premium features.
“Too long to charge”. Very much dependent on the usage patterns and behaviour of the owners. I foresee no problem for my usage even at current rates, but I am looking a few years out anyway. For urban usage, the bulk of driving for most Australians, charging does not seem to be a deterrent to current EV buyers.
“Cost of new infrastructure”. Please elaborate as I think you are inventing problems.
“Charged from fossils..”. That is a big claim based on what?
“Special handling of toxic waste”. Have you never heard of recylcling? Not just the materials but the actual batteries. There are already systems in place to use degraded (ie below 70% of original charge) batteries in other less critical applications such as power wall systems.
“Batteries replaced every 7 years”. Mate we are not talking about golf carts here. Tesla already provide 8 year warranty, meaning the expect that useful lifetime is much longer. And don’t forget there are great strides being made in storage systems. Who knows what they might be like in five years.
“Limited range”. Keep up, they now have equivalent range. And don’t forget “every two hours you should stop for a rest……”
“Trillions of dollars…”. Where exactly and who is paying.
You sound just like the managers at Kodak when their R&D staff invented the digital camera. They stuck to their existing business which was paper and chemicals and went broke. Or Nokia phones “what is a smart phone?” Video rental outfits like Blockbuster. Microsoft basically invented the tablet computer then left it to Apple to take the market with the ipad. Etc, etc.
I could also mention folk like Watson who figured the world would only ever require maybe 4 computers and Bill Gates who did not envisage ever needing more than 640kb
You are part of a fine club with many members, enjoy your past.
Wakey, wakey! stu.
Your EV club has been around for a century or more but it is only now when govts hold their hand and issue huge subsidies that they even begin to appear competitive.
As long as you are half stu-pid and in denial of the real world, that is.
We’re not the ones living in the past.
Neville
But you are the clueless delusional dope stuck fast in your own private puddle of idiocy.
Could the Bard possibly have had our blith in mind?
‘Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Aaaw, cry baby Chris is throwing the toys out of the playpen again.
Don’t you worry Chris, teacher will speak to those naughty boys.
Neville, more mindless, fact-free blither from the bed wetting BIC in response to your detailed comment.
What does it remind you of?
And what’s in the pipeline:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/3-weeks-to-go-til-climate-propaganda-week-starts/
SD
I see that the J-School kiddies who put out that appeal for a week of propaganda on “climate change” repeated the furphy about “95% of scientists” being true believers, rather than the actual figure of 97% of a small, carefully selected, group of climate so-called scientists.
When they have to lie about their cause, you know that they are desperate.
Stu, check the Aus for some info today on EVs and how the prices of ICE vehicles have to become exorbitant to make them a proposition:
“Pro-electric-vehicle groups and the Greens, who want 100 per cent of new car sales to be electric by 2030, use Norway, Denmark, Ireland and The Netherlands as models for supporting electric vehicle uptake.
“As a result of Norway’s pro-EV policies, the ABMARC report shows the cost of a Hyundai i30 in the Scandinavian country is $54,204 compared with $18,498 in Australia.
“Incentives similar to those in Norway are likely to be required and it is not clear how these could be readily achieved as Australia does not currently have Norway’s policy mechanisms at its disposal”.
And countries like Norway have lots of hydro yet still have to screw people to make them buy a few EVs.
But in spite of all subsidies electric vehicles in Australia are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles.
I am not a fan of the Murdoch media machine so don’t read the Oz. Perhaps you could post a copy of the full article for us to read. As for Norway, you will find it is a combination of incentives (subsidies even, but including parking & charging etc) for EV’s and disincentives (mainly taxes) for ICE vehicles. And as you say probably necessary at the current price points to achieve their policy objectives. But once again, the issue I raised was not about current EV’s and their high prices, it was about future EV’s and their pricing. It is all about the inflection point in the take up of EV’s and the matching downward point for ICE vehicles. You continue to make the mistake of thinking everything in the future is a continuation of current factors. The technology take up diagram in the video covered it very well, but of course you refuse to watch it.
As for the statement in the last paragraph, that is rubbish. In any event what have ‘subsidies’ got to do with the vehicles emissions, confusing stocks and flows again are we?
Confused stu sez; “what have ‘subsidies’ got to do with the vehicles emissions”
I realise you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, stu, but surely even you must be aware that if we can never reduce our CO2 emissions with these vehicles [because they emit more than ICE vehicles and our ‘renewables’ will never cope with their power requirements] that, on top of that outcome, impoverishing ourselves through big subsidies is not the solution.
SD,
There is a simple response to what you wrote, it goes bullshit, bullshit, bullshit on each point. You cannot justify any of those claims except by reference to very dodgy sources.
But responding to part of what you wrote previously. This scenario is possible even probable thanks to luddites like you.
“More likely is that we will see Australia become the dumping ground for big, inefficient fuel guzzlers as they are phased out everywhere else and options become ever more limited as ICE models one-by-one die. On the other hand, when the rest of the world stops making ICE vehicles – we should hopefully see a full range of EVs arrive then.”
That is a quote from Bryce Gaton.
We certainly are making (under current Government directions) good strides to be the laggards in the developed world. Being RHD does not help either.
Denialists don’t like evidence, such as this:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-6-3-l.png
Do denialists ignore or deny the fact that when CO2 responds to temperature, it lags by centuries? The IPCC noted:
“that antarctic temperature starts to rise several hundred years before CO2 (Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003).”
So how come CO2 and temps are rising together now?
That is from basic climate change related to orbital change etc, which is not where we are now, where we have kickstarted the process by burning more carbon in 100 yeas than the earth took 100 million years to sequester. Time you caught up with basic stuff. Wait till the earth responds to that temperature lag with really serious action. No , I forgot we will be gone.
Stu
How dare you challenge Chris, the greatest repository of climate change data in Australua.
Are you some kind of denialist?
I was not challenging Chris, but I was attacking the denialists here. The system of posting and responding is not perfect. We also need a post edit capability.
“So how come CO2 and temps are rising together now?”
You shouldn’t display your ignorance of science so brazenly, blith.
You still don’t understand that old scientific adage re correlation and causation?
“So how come CO2 and temps are rising together now?”
Actually, if they are rising together, that proves that CO2 is NOT causing warming!
For CO2 to cause warming it would have to precede any warming.
Just as when warming causes CO2 increase, warming precedes CO2.
Henry’s Law.
What does this mean?
Are denialists aware that when warming is natural, that “the onset of warming at both high southern and northern latitudes preceded by several thousand years the first signals of significant sea level increase resulting from the melting of the northern ice sheets linked with the rapid warming at high northern latitudes (Petit et al., 1999; Shackleton, 2000; Pépin et al., 2001)”.
So why are we seeing absolute sea level rise now?
What’s that you say, blith?
You mean you haven’t gone outside to check yet?
You don’t even realise you can give your enuresis a rest?:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
Labor’s virtue signalling in the lead up to the last election with their 50% EVs by 2030 that was thoroughly rejected would have required 10 billion in recharging infrastructure.
Just so they could demonstrate how it would destroy their coal-free grid.
Not to mention our economy.
And they, like our stu, wonder why the quiet Australians don’t fall for this garbage.
SD said “And they, like our stu, wonder why the quiet Australians don’t fall for this garbage.”. I don’t wonder at all. The average joe is too busy to follow the developments and is not equipped to follow the science. Therefore, if actually aware of the issue, they plod along susceptible to the misinformation put out by the pseudo science group (you and others, though you may be just a victim not a source) and reject the actual science. But no matter, events are starting to overtake the debate. We await your profound apology for promoting misleading stories.
That’s the way, stu. When you are in denial of the facts and choose to discredit the majority who understand the facts quite well, the only move left to you is to predict future doom to make your point.
Very sad, really.
But don’t feel lonely.
It’s standard practice for all the other doom-preachers, too.
As history has continually shown.
Unsurprisingly Stu is a great fan of technology prophets.
Why wouldn’t he be? After all, the only people with a worse record for predicting the future than climate alarmists are the prophets of technology.
Stu has highlighted the errors of some of those prophets on the pessimistic side, but has ignored (or is simply unaware of) the super optimists. Everything from flying cars to moon/Mars bases has been prophesised, but not appeared.
It might be a “mistake of thinking everything in the future is a continuation of current factors”, but it is where the smart money is made. A simple reality check on the failure rate of technology start-ups is worth doing.
It is very risky predicting technology change but even riskier denying the likelihood of significant business and social change resulting from it. Sure there are start up failures and one of the key differences between here and USA is the attitude towards that. It is why we have a lack of funding for startups and therefore poor growth. It is why some of the great technology invented here heads overseas for fulfilment. In other words because of the attitude of people like you, no appetite for change and challenge. But you do like big holes in the ground, yes?
Stu
You really do have a very simple binary mind. To you everything is good or evil, black or white.
Everyone is either a noble climate change true believer or an evil ignorant denialist. A farsighted worker on the leading edge of technology or a stupid Luddite. There is no scope for nuance in your mind.
Much as it is difficult for your tiny mind to comprehend, it is pissible to be a rational sceptic, holding the middle ground. Having doubts about the practical speed of technological development is not tbe same as “denying the likelihood of significant business and social change”.
But let’s see how serious you really are about technological change. How much have you invested in technology start ups? How are those investments going?
Or are just a big mouthed nong who wouldn’t risk your own money, but decry others who also show caution?
Other people’s money might be your recipe for change? It certainly seems to be in relation to EVs, batteries and renewables.
If you use the full data set you get an interesting story on Amazon fires:
the fire season from May 1st through August 22nd, 2019 from MODIS and VIIRS confirm that the 2019 fire season has the highest fire count since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the Legal Amazon (shown on map in green). In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the observed increase in deforestation.
I cannot wait to see how denialists will cherry pick a small segment of this data to spin their lies?
The Amazon fires are about average for this time of year. Here is NASA’s latest report on these fires. Nothing unusual or unprecedented at all and even the Mann donkey knows that the Amazon “lungs of the earth” produce about 6% of the planet’s oxygen, not the 20% fable preferred by the extremists.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil
Jo Nova has already provided us with the proper data and evidence.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/firestorm-of-fake-news-convenient-global-hysteria-about-amazon-based-on-nothing-but-twitter-pics/
Here’s Dr Spencer’s recent comment on the Amazon fires.
“The Amazon is burning”
“A few days ago, The Guardian announced Large swathes of the Amazon rainforest are burning. I don’t know how this has suddenly entered the public’s consciousness, but for those of us who keep track of such things, farmland and some rainforest in Amazonia and adjacent lands has been burned by farmers for many decades during this time of year so they can plant crops. This year is not exceptional in this regard, yet someone decided to make an issue of it this year. In fact, it looks like 2019 might be one of the lowest years for biomass burning. Deforestation there has gone down dramatically in the last 20 years.
The rainforest itself does not burn in response to global warming, and in fact warming in the tropics has been so slow that it is unlikely that any tropical resident would perceive it in their lifetime. This is not a climate change issue; it’s a farming and land use issue”.
Neville, I can’t wait to see how the blithering bed-wetters will cherry pick a small segment of this data to spin their lies.
This is one of the lowest years if you check global fire data. Since 2003 graph.
http://www.globalfiredata.org/_plots/updates/annual_em_totals.pngHere is the NY Times report on the
Here’s the NY Times 24th Aug report on the fires. There has been a lower trend since 1989 and since 2011. See graphs at link.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Sorry, the second link above is the deforestation of the Amazon graph since 1989, not fires. See graph at the link.
Here again is the global fire data for biomass burning. I hope this link is OK.
http://www.globalfiredata.org/_plots/updates/annual_em_totals.png
Some good data here, too, Neville:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/27/l-a-times-anti-science-propaganda-campaign-hyping-amazon-fires/
Climate Change Catastrophists are blocking Brisbane City traffic and commercial activities this morning, protesting on the right to protest about all things climate.
Including farmers going about their traditional farming business and how we must stop eating meat.
Paul Driessen on a similar UN event coming up in Salt Lake City and how sceptics are never invited or allowed to speak at a taxpayer funded UN function:
“…..agricultural methane could possibly be 27% of two-thirds of 0.00017% of atmospheric methane (CH4) – and that barely detectable 0.00003% (30¢ out of $1-million) of the atmosphere is supposedly driving dangerous manmade climate change. And based on that, we must change our farming and eating habits.
Instead of beef, humans must switch to “nutritious and environmentally sound” alternatives like green pepper, soy, asparagus and squash, says the IPCC. Instead of the full package of beef, pork and poultry, we should eat buckwheat, soy, pears and kidney beans – or other “globally optimal plant replacements.” Of course, locusts, grasshoppers, grubs and other insects are also excellent protein sources, it notes.
The 20,000-some activists, bureaucrats and politicians heading to Salt Lake City for the August 26-28 UN climate change and sustainability conference will no doubt be following that sage advice. (Perhaps they’ll share their menu and Bugs Not Beef recipes.) They could also have had a global teleconference, instead of flying and driving halfway around the world – instead of spending millions of dollars, consuming millions of gallons of aviation and vehicle fuel, and emitting prodigious quantities of CO2 and CH4.
Dangerous manmade climate change “deniers” like me were of course not invited to participate in this taxpayer-financed UN event. We never are. So the Heartland Institute organized a separate August 26 program nearby, at which alternative evidence and perspectives will be presented and live-streamed.
Heartland speakers will explain why climate change is some 97% natural, not manmade (contrary to that phony 97% consensus that says otherwise); and why real-world evidence does not support IPCC claims about dangerously rising seas, increasingly violent storms or worsening droughts. My talk will focus on why biofuel, wind, solar and battery technologies are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable.”
SD
Like everything else about that UN conference, the catering will be highly unsustainable (at least as the UN defines sustainability).
Here in this recent post Dr Lomborg warns us that the doomsayers are the real threat. The world has come a long way since 1900 and since 1990 and average life expectancy today is over 70.
But in 2100 all countries will be much wealthier than they are today and he provides proper links to data from the UN etc to support his claims.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-fear-wrong-policies-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-08
Neville has started making sensible points without the usual obscenities.
So you accept that you were wrong about the Amazon fires?
troll
Looking in the mirror again, are you?
troll
BJ, isn’t our blith a lovely boy!
So effervescent!
[I bet you vunder ven he effer vasn’t]
With a bit of luck he’ll stop talking to you, too.
SD
I hope not, he is such a fun gi.
Stu, here is that article in the Aus showing EVs to be greater emitters of CO2 than ICEVs that you can access with graphs etc:
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-report-electric-cars-have-higher-co2-emissions/
Thanks, but inconclusive, the full article is hidden behind a paywall and the summary is not very informative
SD thanks for that GWPF report on the OZ EV and ABMARC analysis , it certainly exposes the whole sordid fra-d, yet Bolt informed us that Labor/ Greens still believe their silly nonsense.
I’ll say it again, we dodged a very expensive bullet on the 18th May and special thanks must go to Qld voters for rejecting these clueless fools.
Nevilles conduct didn’t last long, probably because he is the clueless fool peddling sordid fraud.